The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI)

Abstract

In this study, a six-dimensional model of communication styles is proposed and operationalized using the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI). The CSI distinguishes between six domain-level communicative behavior scales, Expressiveness, Preciseness, Verbal Aggressiveness, Questioningness, Emotionality, and Impression Manipulativeness, each consisting of four facet-level scales. Based on factor and item analyses, the CSI is shown to be an adequate instrument, with all reliabilities of the domain-level scales surpassing the .80 level. Consistent with the behavioral view espoused in this study, the CSI scales showed medium to high levels of convergent validity with lexical communication marker scales and behavior-oriented communication scales and discriminant validity with nonbehavioral intrapersonal cognitions and feelings vis-à-vis communication. In addition, personality, as operationalized using the HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised (HEXACO-PI-R) and Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), was found to have medium to strong associations with communication styles, supporting the integration of the trait and communication styles perspectives.

Keywords

communication styles personality interpersonal communication

The adequate measurement of the main communication styles may be considered crucial because of the practical relevance of communication styles in all kinds of settings in which transfer of personal and nonpersonal information, knowledge, ideas, opinions, and feelings play a role. Communication styles play not only a role in personal relations but also in relations between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, leaders and subordinates, consultants and clients, politicians and the public, sales agents and customers, and—in and outside court—among judges, lawyers, accusers, and defendants. Although there has been a long-standing interest in the way people communicate (e.g., Burgoon & Hale, 1987; Gudykunst et al., 1996; Norton, 1983; Rubin, Rubin, Graham, Perse, & Seibold, 2009), some scholars have lamented the lack of an integrative framework to capture somebody’s communication style (Beatty, 1998; Daly & Bippus, 1998; McCroskey, Daly, Martin, & Beatty, 1998). In this study, we introduce the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI), which has its roots in a lexical study on communication styles (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Alting Siberg, Van Gameren, Vlug, 2009) and in deception and impression management research (Burgoon, Buller, Floyd, & Grandpre, 1996; Goffman, 1959). We provide evidence for the convergence of the CSI with behavioral communication styles and its divergence from nonbehavioral conceptualizations of communication styles. Furthermore, we explore whether trait and communication style models can be integrated by investigating the relations of the CSI scales with the main personality dimensions.

The Main Communication Styles Dimensions

As a basis for the CSI, we use the definition of De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al. (2009), who define a communication style as

the characteristic way a person sends verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal signals in social interactions denoting (a) who he or she is or wants to (appear to) be, (b) how he or she tends to relate to people with whom he or she interacts, and (c) in what way his or her messages should usually be interpreted. (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., 2009, p. 179)

This definition goes beyond the frequently employed definition of Norton (1983, pp. 19, 58), which defines a communication style as “the way one verbally, nonverbally, and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood,” by also including the (a) identity and (b) interactional aspects of communicative behaviors. For instance, somebody who exhibits conversational dominance, may not only convey that somebody should take the message serious (i.e., [c]), but may also convey status information (i.e., [a]) and how she or he wants the conversational partner to react (i.e., submissive—[b]). The definition specifically excludes intrapersonal cognitions or feelings about communication, such as ideas about one’s own or other people’s communication styles or mindsets, which may be precursors to—or results of—the communicative behaviors exhibited.

Several communication style instruments are available to measure contextual communication styles such as for instance in doctor-patient communication (Buller & Buller, 1987), leader communication (Johnson & Bechler, 1998), partner communication (Noller & White, 1990), parent-child communication (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990), and sales communication (Notarantonio & Cohen, 1990). In addition, there are a number of general communication instruments, such as Norton’s Communicator Style Measure (CSM; Norton, 1978, 1983), Burgoon and Hale’s (1987) Relational Communication Style (RCS), and Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) Communication Style Scale (CSS).¹ Still, some communication scholars have been dissatisfied with the lack of integration of the field (Beatty, 1998; Daly & Bippus, 1998; McCroskey et al., 1998), because an underlying model to specify the number and content of communication styles has been lacking. Furthermore, the most commonly used and encompassing general communication styles instrument, Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) CSS, has been criticized because it contains scales, such as Inferring Meaning, Use of Feelings, and Positive Perceptions of Silence, that refer to (intrapersonal) cognitions and feelings about communication, instead of to “the characteristic way somebody sends signals” (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., 2009), and may thus fall outside the scope of communicative behaviors as defined by the definition provided above.

In order to obtain an empirically based model of communication styles, De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009) conducted a lexical study using adjectives and verbs that described the way people communicate. The main assumption of a lexical study is that anything that can be said on the way somebody communicates must become encoded in language and recorded in a dictionary. Using a comprehensive list of 744 adjectives and 837 verbs, De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009) provided preliminary evidence for seven communication style dimensions. These lexical communication dimensions were named Expressiveness, Preciseness, Niceness, Supportiveness, Threateningness, Emotionality, and Reflectiveness. Examples of high-loading adjectives and verbs on these dimensions are extroverted and eloquent versus to withdraw into one’s shell and to fall silent (Expressiveness), professional, expert, and precise versus to waffle (Preciseness), nice and softhearted versus to put someone in the wrong and to keep harping on something (Niceness), to comfort someone and to put someone in the limelight versus sarcastic and cynical (Supportiveness), to abuse someone, to bark at someone, to threaten, and to bark (Threateningness), piqued, stressed, sad, and bad tempered (Emotionality), and to dissect oneself, to dissect something or someone versus coolly and formal (Reflectiveness). Although—after ipsatization—seven independent principal components were retrieved, some of the (nonipsatized) marker scales of the lexical communication dimensions proved to have absolute relations of .50 and stronger, such as Niceness and Threateningness (r = –.50) and Emotionality and Threateningness (r = .56), which may make it harder to construct a factor-pure communication styles instrument.

One of the assumptions in the lexical study of De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009) was that the three nonbehavioral CSS scales noted above, Inferring Meaning, Use of Feelings, and Positive Perceptions of Silence, would have the weakest link with the lexical marker scales. This assumption was confirmed. While five of the CSS scales, Openness, Preciseness, Dramatic Communication, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Indirect Communication, had a communality of > .20 with the lexical marker scales, Inferring Meaning, Use of Feelings, and Positive Perceptions of Silence had communalities of ≤ .20 with the lexical marker scales. Consequently, Inferring Meaning, Use of Feelings, and Positive Perceptions of Silence do not appear to align well with the communication style perspective proposed by De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009).

Personality and Communication Styles

Personality refers to “a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that give both consistency and individuality to a person’s behavior” (Feist & Feist, 2006, p. 4). Considered from a trait psychologist’s perspective and in agreement with the communication style definition, a communication style is an expression of a person’s personality. Consequently, it is plausible to assume that the main communication style dimensions are subsumed under more general personality models, such as the Big Five or Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990) or the HEXACO model of personality (Ashton et al., 2004; Ashton & Lee, 2008).

Both the Big Five and the HEXACO models assume that personality can be summarized by referring to either five (Big Five/Five Factor Model) or six (HEXACO) broad dimensions of personality. The Big Five model proposes the following five main dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism (vs. Emotional Stability), Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience (or: Intellect). The HEXACO model proposes an additional dimension of personality, named Honesty-Humility, and has a slightly different rotation of two of the remaining five dimensions. That is, high Emotionality in the HEXACO model is a combination of high Big Five Agreeableness and low Emotional Stability while high HEXACO Agreeableness a combination is of high Big Five Agreeableness and high Emotional Stability. Several lexical studies have offered support for the HEXACO model (Ashton et al., 2004; Lee & Ashton, 2008) and have shown that the HEXACO model is better than the Big Five model able to predict a number of important criteria, such as unethical business decisions, sexual harassment, egoism, and psychopathy (Ashton & Lee, 2008; De Vries, De Vries, De Hoogh, & Feij, 2009; De Vries & Van Kampen, 2010; Lee, Gizzarone, & Ashton, 2003).

Although it is plausible that personality and communication styles are closely linked, there has been a surprising lack of studies that have investigated this link. In an article by Leung and Bond (2001),² evidence was found of relations between two second-order factor scales of the CSS and a number of personality traits. The CSS higher order factor “Verbal Engagement,” comprising Dramatic, Precise, and Open communication was strongly related to the personality scales Extraversion and Openness to Experience and the CSS higher order factor “Attentiveness to the Other,” comprising Inferring Meaning and Interpersonal Sensitivity, was strongly related to the personality scales Helpfulness (which resembles Agreeableness), Restraint (which resembles Conscientiousness), and Intellect. Heisel, La France, and Beatty (2003) found evidence for a positive association between Verbal Aggressiveness and Eysenck, Eysenck, and Barret’s (1985) Psychoticism (which is a combination of low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness), while Extraversion and reversed Neuroticism were positively related to Affinity-Seeking communication. In a similar vein, Weaver (2005) found evidence of a negative association between Psychoticism and a Responsive communication style, positive relations between Extraversion and Straightforward and Talkative communication styles and a positive relation between Neuroticism and an Acquiescent communication style. Although these studies offer some evidence to link personality to communication styles, at the moment the evidence is still sparse.

On face value, the seven lexical communication dimensions described earlier also appear to be related to the main personality dimensions. Most clearly, Expressiveness seems to refer to the (non- and para-)verbal manifestation of extraversion. Although conscientiousness is generally regarded as a noninterpersonal trait that refers to somebody’s interaction with time and the physical environment, Preciseness, with its focus on the way somebody structures his her communication, is probably most closely related to conscientiousness. Niceness, Supportiveness, and Threateningness appear to be associated with different aspects of agreeableness, such as sympathy, forgiveness, patience, and lack of anger. The communication style Emotionality contains elements that seem to most closely fit Big Five neuroticism versus emotional stability. Finally, Reflectiveness most closely resembles openness to experience. Although at first, HEXACO Honesty-Humility does not seem to be represented in the lexical communication styles, De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009) note that some of the adjectives associated with deceptiveness are found in two of the lexical communication style factors, Threateningness and Niceness.

In this study, we will report the first results with a new communication styles questionnaire, the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI). At the outset, the CSI was developed to match—as closely as possible—the main lexical communication style dimensions. However, after several rounds of data collection with several versions of a preliminary communication styles instrument,³ we found that it was impossible to construct independent factors that aligned well with the lexical factors Threateningness, Niceness, and Supportiveness. Facets constructed to reflect these factors usually loaded on a single factor. We therefore decided to create one single overarching factor, which we named Verbal Aggressiveness.

In addition, in line with research on deception and impression management (Burgoon et al., 1996; Goffman, 1959), we chose to construct a scale to measure a deceptive communication style, which we named Impression Manipulativeness. Nonverbal and paraverbal behaviors, such as pupil dilation, fleeting facial expressions, higher pitched tones, and an increase or decrease in speech errors and hesitations, have been used to detect deception (DePaulo et al., 2003; Frank & Ekman, 2004; Vrij & Mann, 2004). However, a focus on non- and paraverbal leakage and deception cues offer only a marginal advantage in the detection of lies and, when these cues are consciously used, may even lead to a decrease in accuracy when confronted with honest statements (Levine, Serota, & Shulman, 2010). As a consequence, Levine, Shaw, & Shulman (2010) advocate to focus on motives and the context of deception instead of non- and paraverbal deception cues.

According to personality theory, motives associated with deception often involve obtaining status and rewards at the expense of others. These motives are best exemplified in the personality trait Honesty-Humility. Honesty-Humility has been found to be an important predictor of a wide range of work and nonwork related criteria, such as unethical decision making, lower study grades, counterproductive behaviors, and sexual intimidation (Ashton & Lee, 2008; De Vries, De Vries, & Born, 2011; Lee, Ashton, & De Vries, 2005; Lee et al., 2003). Likewise, Impression Manipulativeness may be especially important in settings in which communicative behaviors such as ingratiation, use of charm, and concealing information are likely to be used in order to obtain status or other rewards.

To summarize, the CSI is meant to represent six behavioral communication style dimensions: Expressiveness (X), Preciseness (P), Verbal Aggressiveness (VA; which comprises the lexical factors Threateningness, reversed Niceness, and reversed Supportiveness), Questioningness (Q; in the lexical study this factor was named Reflectiveness), Emotionality (E), and Impression Manipulativeness (IM). Based on lexical communication and personality studies (Ashton et al., 2004; De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., 2009) and deception and impression management studies (Burgoon et al., 1996; Goffman, 1959), these six communication style dimensions are believed to provide an integrative framework covering the main communication styles. That is, according to this framework, (a) there are no substantial other behavioral communication style dimensions that are unrelated to the six CSI dimensions proposed in this study and (b) nonbehavioral conceptualizations of communication styles will lie outside of this framework, being unrelated or not strongly related to the six CSI dimensions proposed in this study.

The CSI is tested in two samples, a student sample and a community sample. The psychometric properties of the CSI, its relations with lexical communication marker scales, the CSS (Gudykunst et al., 1996), two other separate communication styles scales (Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness; Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986) and personality are tested in a community sample. In addition, a student sample is used to provide a cross-validation to find out whether the findings with respect to personality hold in a different (student) sample. We expected convergent correlations of the CSI domain-level scales and the lexical communication marker scales, such that CSI Expressiveness would be most strongly related to lexical Expressiveness, CSI Preciseness most strongly to lexical Preciseness, CSI Verbal Aggressiveness most strongly to lexical Threateningness, Niceness, and Supportiveness, CSI Questioningness most strongly to lexical Reflectiveness, CSI Emotionality most strongly to lexical Emotionality, and Impression Manipulativeness not strongly to any of the lexical scales. With respect to the CSS of Gudykunst et al. (1996), in line with the findings with the lexical marker scales in De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009), we expected positive associations between CSI Expressiveness and CSS Openness and Dramatic Communication and between CSI Preciseness and CSS Preciseness. Also in line with the lexical study, we expected a lack of strong correlations (e.g., discriminant validity) of the CSI scales with CSS Positive Perception of Silence, Use of Feelings, and Inferring Meaning, because these three CSS scales refer to intrapersonal cognitions and feelings about communication instead of to interpersonal communication styles. Last of all, we expected high positive correlations between CSI Verbal Aggressiveness and Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness and between CSI Questioningness and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness.

With respect to personality, we expected the following associations of the communication styles with HEXACO personality scales: CSI Expressiveness with HEXACO Extraversion, CSI Preciseness with HEXACO Conscientiousness, CSI Verbal Aggressiveness with (reversed) HEXACO Agreeableness, CSI Questioningness with HEXACO Openness to Experience, CSI Emotionality with HEXACO Emotionality, and CSI Impression Manipulativeness with (reversed) HEXACO Honesty-Humility. In the student sample, we also included the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) from the Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Because the NEO-PI-R does not contain a domain-level construct resembling HEXACO Honesty-Humility, we expected CSI Impression Manipulativeness to be unrelated to any of the NEO-PI-R domain-level scales.

Method

Procedure and Participants

Community sample

A sample of community respondents was obtained through a large-scale national ISO-certified representative Internet panel. Panel members were approached six times to fill out a questionnaire. The first three waves of data collection were each spaced 2 weeks apart, and the second three waves, which were also spaced 2 weeks apart, were obtained 1.5 years later. The HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised (HEXACO-PI-R; Ashton & Lee, 2008; De Vries, Ashton, & Lee, 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2004) was filled out in the first wave of data collection that contained 1,352 respondents. Results of this part of the study are reported in De Vries and Van Kampen (2010). The second and third round of data collection contained instruments were are not relevant for this study. The fourth wave, which consisted of 815 participants, contained the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI) and—after a break filled with another questionnaire—Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) CSS. The fifth wave (N = 744) contained the lexical communication marker scales and the sixth wave (N = 716) contained Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness scale and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness scale. The fourth wave (N = 815), which is most relevant for the psychometric properties of the CSI, consisted of 52.8% (N = 430) women. Age ranged between 19 and 88, with a mean of 50.1 (SD = 14.4). Education levels were evenly spread, with 28.7% of the respondents (N = 234) having completed lower levels of education (e.g., primary education, lower level secondary or tertiary education), 40.2% (N = 328) having completed medium levels of education (e.g., higher level secondary or medium-level tertiary education), and 31% (N = 253) having completed higher levels of education (e.g., college or university degree).

Student sample

In return for feedback, a sample of 101 bachelor students (76.2% women) filled out the CSI as part of a 2nd year methodology course. Mean age of the respondents was 20.8 (SD = 2.2), with a range between 19 and 32. Some of the students who participated in the CSI study had previously (7 months earlier) filled out the HEXACO-PI-R (N = 61) and NEO-PI-R (N = 42) as part of a 1st year psychology course. Questionnaires were matched based on student numbers.

Instruments

CSI

The CSI consists of 96 communication behavior items that are reported in the appendix. The items are divided equally among the following six domain-level scales (16 items per scale): Expressiveness, Preciseness, Verbal Aggressiveness, Questioningness, Emotionality, and Impression Manipulativeness. Each of the domain-level scales consists of four facets, each with four items. All items (including those in the other scales reported below) were answered on a Likert-type scale with answering categories ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Cronbach reliabilities of the CSI domain-level scales ranged from .82 to .88 in the community sample (Table 1) and from .83 to .87 in the student sample.

Table 1.

Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): Descriptives and Gender Differences.

		Total		Women (N = 430)		Men (N = 385)
	Alpha	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	d(Women-Men)
Expressiveness (X)	.88	3.09	.53	3.08	.54	3.09	.53	−.03
Talkativeness	.74	2.96	.72	3.04	.72	2.86	.71	.26**
Conversational dominance	.77	2.90	.66	2.83	.68	2.98	.63	−.23**
Humor	.84	2.98	.75	2.88	.75	3.09	.73	−.28**
Informality	.78	3.51	.70	3.57	.72	3.45	.68	.17*
Preciseness (P)	.86	3.22	.49	3.15	.47	3.30	.49	−.32**
Structuredness	.80	3.32	.63	3.28	.62	3.37	.64	−.14*
Thoughtfulness	.80	3.24	.69	3.12	.68	3.37	.69	−.36**
Substantiveness	.77	3.04	.69	2.98	.67	3.11	.71	−.20**
Conciseness	.77	3.27	.65	3.21	.64	3.34	.66	−.20**
Verbal aggressiveness (VA)	.83	2.55	.48	2.47	.48	2.64	.46	−.36**
Angriness	.77	3.11	.75	3.16	.75	3.05	.75	.14*
Authoritarianism	.70	2.59	.66	2.49	.69	2.70	.61	−.32**
Derogatoriness	.73	2.45	.73	2.29	.70	2.63	.72	−.48**
Nonsupportiveness	.72	2.05	.51	1.95	.47	2.17	.52	−.45**
Questioningness (Q)	.83	3.16	.47	3.09	.48	3.23	.46	−.29**
Unconventionality	.73	2.88	.68	2.76	.67	3.01	.67	−.38**
Philosophicalness	.73	3.30	.68	3.35	.67	3.25	.69	.14*
Inquisitiveness	.68	3.47	.56	3.48	.54	3.47	.58	.01
Argumentativeness	.80	2.97	.74	2.78	.73	3.19	.69	−.57**
Emotionality (E)	.84	3.02	.50	3.17	.47	2.85	.47	.68**
Sentimentality	.76	3.08	.72	3.33	.67	2.79	.65	.82**
Worrisomeness	.74	2.90	.69	3.01	.70	2.77	.66	.36**
Tension	.55	2.94	.62	3.03	.63	2.84	.59	.30**
Defensiveness	.72	3.16	.65	3.30	.64	3.00	.61	.48**
Impression manipulativeness (IM)^a	.82	2.63	.54	2.61	.57	2.67	.50	−.11
Ingratiation	.78	2.42	.71	2.38	.73	2.47	.68	−.13
Charm	.75	2.55	.73	2.53	.80	2.57	.64	−.06
Inscrutableness	.60	3.28	.58	3.30	.57	3.26	.58	.07
Concealingness	.64	2.93	.61	2.91	.62	2.96	.61	−.08

Cronbach reliability and descriptives are calculated using three facets only (Ingratiation, Charm, & Concealingness)

Lexical marker scales

The 30 highest loading adjectives and verbs from the communication style factors uncovered in the lexical study, Expressiveness, Preciseness, Niceness, Supportiveness, Threateningness, Emotionality, and Reflectiveness, which can be found in Table 2 (pp. 190-191) of De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009), were included in the fifth wave of data collection in the community study. Adjectives and verbs were separately provided. The 108 adjectives were offered using the lead sentence, “Compared to others, in a conversation I have a tendency to be a(n) . . . communicator,” in which the dots were replaced by adjectives such as “eloquent” (Expressiveness), “concise” (Preciseness), “cheerful” (Niceness), and “dejected” (Emotionality). The 102 verbs—with or without object—were offered using the lead sentence, “Compared to others, in a conversation I tend to . . .,” in which the dots were replaced by verbs such as “comfort someone” (Supportiveness), “abuse someone” (Threateningness), and “muse” (Reflectiveness). Cronbach reliabilities of the lexical marker scales ranged from .81 for Reflectiveness to .97 for Threateningness.

Table 2.

Principal Component Analysis on the Facets of the CSI (N = 815).

	X	P	VA	Q	E	IM	h ²
Expressiveness (X)
Talkativeness	.78	−.08	.15	.14	.17	−.08	.68
Conversational dominance	.60	.22	.29	.30	−.14	.09	.61
Humor	.66	−.10	.13	.12	−.15	.17	.53
Informality	.78	.08	−.26	.06	−.05	−.18	.73
Preciseness (P)
Structuredness	.27	.75	−.10	.08	−.16	−.12	.70
Thoughtfulness	−.26	.63	−.27	.20	−.18	.08	.62
Substantiveness	−.35	.62	−.08	.25	.03	−.23	.63
Conciseness	.07	.70	−.01	−.16	−.19	−.02	.56
Verbal aggressiveness (VA)
Angriness	.04	−.06	.63	−.01	.34	.04	.52
Authoritarianism	.11	.15	.64	.08	−.01	.32	.55
Derogatoriness	.08	−.16	.70	.01	−.17	.26	.62
Nonsupportiveness	−.12	−.23	.65	−.22	−.15	.04	.56
Questioningness (Q)
Unconventionality	.25	−.20	.45	.49	−.12	.17	.59
Philosophicalness	.07	−.05	−.09	.79	.07	−.06	.66
Inquisitiveness	.18	.33	−.10	.71	.02	−.03	.65
Argumentativeness	.23	.05	.38	.57	−.22	.17	.60
Emotionality (E)
Sentimentality	.15	−.09	−.11	.00	.74	.02	.58
Worrisomeness	.02	−.09	.21	.03	.77	−.03	.64
Tension	−.38	−.33	.07	−.07	.57	.18	.62
Defensiveness	−.20	−.12	−.06	−.05	.69	.17	.57
Impression manipulativeness (IM)
Ingratiation	−.03	−.13	.13	−.03	.22	.78	.70
Charm	.28	.05	.25	.14	.11	.69	.64
Inscrutableness	−.05	.09	–.65	−.10	−.18	.23	.53
Concealingness	−.19	−.11	−.03	−.03	−.03	.75	.61
% of Variance	11.67	9.77	12.18	8.58	10.15	8.92	61.26

Note. PCA loadings ≥ .40 are noted in bold-face.

Other communication styles

In the community study, Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) CSS was included in the fourth wave and Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness scale and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness scale were included in the sixth wave of the study. Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) CSS consists of 84 items divided among the following eight scales: Openness, Preciseness, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Dramatic Communication, Indirect Communication, Positive Perception of Silence, Use of Feelings, and Inferring Meaning, of which the latter three refer to intrapersonal cognitions and feelings with respect to communication instead of to interpersonal communication styles (see De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., 2009). Comparable to the reliabilities in the lexical study of De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009), Cronbach reliabilities of the scales in the community study ranged between .66 for Indirect Communication and .87 for Use of Feelings, with a mean of .78.

The 20 items of the Verbal Aggressiveness scale of Infante and Wigley (1986) and the 20 items of the Argumentativeness scale of Infante and Rancer (1982) were translated in Dutch and back-translated by two of the authors of this study. Differences in translation were discussed and resolved among the translators. Both scales were included in the sixth wave of the community study. Cronbach reliabilities were .81 for Verbal Aggressiveness and .88 for Argumentativeness. Verbal Aggressiveness correlated .22 (p < .01) with Argumentativeness.

Personality

The HEXACO-PI-R (Ashton & Lee, 2008; De Vries, Ashton, & Lee, 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2004) was included in the first wave of the community study (1.5 years before all of the communication measures) and in the first wave of the student study (7 months before the CSI). Note that these relatively long time lags ensured that it is unlikely that high correlations between the HEXACO and CSI scales resulted from spillover effects. The HEXACO-PI-R consists of 200 items, 192 of which are equally divided among the six domain-level scales, Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience, and eight additional items for the interstitial facet scale Altruism. Cronbach reliabilities for the domain-level scales ranged between .85 for Conscientiousness and .91 for Honesty-Humility in the community sample and between .87 for Agreeableness and .91 for Extraversion in the student sample. In the student sample, the NEO-PI-R was also included in the first wave of the study. The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hoekstra, Ormel, & De Fruyt, 1996) consists of 240 items, equally divided among the five domain-level scales Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Cronbach reliabilities in this study ranged between .85 for Agreeableness and .91 for Conscientiousness.

Results

CSI Descriptives

In Table 1 the descriptives of the CSI factor and facet scales in the community sample are presented. Apart from four facets (Tension, Inscrutableness, Concealingness, and Inquisitiveness) all facets had Cronbach reliabilities ≥ .70 and all reliabilities of the domain-level scales were > .80. The means, which could theoretically fluctuate between 1 and 5, were all within acceptable limits. For the domain-level scales they ranged between 2.5 and 3.5 and for the facet scales they ranged between 2 and 4. On average, women scored significantly higher on Emotionality and somewhat lower on Verbal Aggressiveness, Preciseness, and Questioningness.

CSI Factor Structure

A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 16 facet scales of the CSI (Table 2). Six principal components with eigenvalue > 1 were extracted, explaining 61.3% of the variance in the data. Except for two facets, Unconventionality and Inscrutableness, all facets loaded > .50 on their designated factors, confirming the expected solution. Unconventionality loaded somewhat higher (.49) on its designated factor, Questioningness, than on Verbal Aggressiveness (.45), but the most problematic facet was Inscrutableness, which loaded clearly higher on Verbal Aggressiveness (–.65) than on Impression Manipulativeness (.23). To check for the consistency of the factor solution in the community sample with the solution obtained in the student sample, we ran two Procrustes analyses, one with the 24 facets and one with Inscrutableness removed. Although the congruence coefficients of both analyses were generally adequate, the average congruence coefficient in the 24 facet solution (.905) was lower than the average congruence coefficient in the 23 facet solution (.923). One of the factors in the 24 facet solution, but none in the 23 facet solution, had a congruence coefficient < .85. We therefore decided to remove Inscrutableness for the remainder of the analyses. Descriptives of Impression Manipulativeness in Table 1 and the correlations in the remainder of the tables are thus based on the aggregated three facets of Impression Manipulativeness.

Correlations Among the Domain-Level Scales of the CSI

In Table 3, the within-instrument correlations of the CSI are shown. On the whole, these correlations provide evidence for the distinctiveness of the CSI scales. In the student sample (above diagonal in Table 3), none of the absolute correlations between the CSI scales was higher than .30. However, in the community sample, three of the 15 absolute correlations were higher than .30, that is, between Expressiveness and Questioningness (.42), between Verbal Aggressiveness and Impression Manipulativeness (.35), and between Preciseness and Emotionality (–.33).

Table 3.

Correlations of the Domain-Level Scales of the CSI in the Community Sample (Below Diagonal, N = 815) and the Student Sample (Above Diagonal, N = 101).

	X	P	VA	Q	E	IM
Expressiveness (X)		−.22	.05	.21	−.13	.11
Preciseness (P)	−.02		−.11	.14	−.19	−.12
Verbal aggressiveness (VA)	.13	−.29		.17	−.12	.29
Questioningness (Q)	.42	.10	.21		−.22	−.08
Emotionality (E)	−.17	−.33	.08	−.12		.14
Impression manipulativeness (IM)	.04	−.21	.35	.15	.21

Note. p < .01 at |r| > .08 in the community sample and at |r| > .24 in the student sample.

Construct Validity of the CSI

The lexical marker scales (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., 2009), Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) CSS, Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness, and Wigley and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness scales were included in the community study to inspect the convergent and discriminant correlations of the CSI (Table 4). Apart from Impression Manipulativeness, we expected the CSI to map relatively well on the lexical marker scales and to show convergent correlations with all CSS scales except for Positive Perception of Silence, Use of Feelings, and Inferring Meaning. In addition, we expected CSI Verbal Aggressiveness to show a convergent correlation with Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness and CSI Questioningness to show a convergent correlation with Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness.

Table 4.

Correlations of the CSI with Lexical Communication Marker Scales, CSS, and Infante and Colleagues’ Scales.

	X	P	VA	Q	E	IM
Lexical Marker Scales
Expressiveness	.72 **	.14**	.09*	.29**	−.35**	−.11**
Preciseness	.14**	.61 **	−.15**	.23**	−.33**	−.14**
Threateningness	.00	−.24**	.51 **	.06	.15**	.28**
Niceness	−.05	.15**	–.59 **	−.27**	.03	−.15**
Supportiveness	.20**	.02	−.36**	.11**	.20**	−.05
Reflectiveness	.28**	.04	.01	.50 **	.11**	.07
Emotionality	−.23**	−.31**	.39**	−.02	.40 **	.23**
CSS (Gudykunst et al.)
Openness	.67 **	−.09*	.07*	.35**	.05	.03
Preciseness	.22**	.49 **	.06	.46 **	−.21**	−.06
Interpersonal sensitivity	−.20**	.26**	–.53 **	−.04	.14**	−.03
Dramatic communication	.60 **	−.22**	.34**	.50 **	.10**	.31**
Indirect communication	−.27**	−.14**	.19**	−.02	.28**	.39**
Positive perception of silence	.12**	.21**	−.10**	.22**	−.32**	−.19**
Use of feelings	.21**	−.06	−.12**	.15**	.17**	.02
Inferring meaning	.39**	.25**	−.11**	.35**	−.12**	−.03
Infante & colleagues
Verbal aggressiveness	.13**	−.14**	.62 **	.13**	.00	.21**
Argumentativeness	.48 **	.22**	.18**	.48 **	–.44 **	−.08*

Note. Ns = 744, 815, and 716 for correlations with Lexical Marker Scales, Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) Communication Style Scale (CSS), and Infante and colleagues’ scales (Infante & Wigley, 1986; Infante & Rancer, 1982), respectively; X = Expressiveness, P = Preciseness, VA = Verbal Aggressiveness, Q = Questioningness, E = Emotionality, and IM = Impression Manipulativeness. Correlations ≥ .40 are noted in bold-face.

p < .05. **p < .01.

On the whole, these expectations were confirmed. Apart from CSI Impression Manipulativeness and lexical Supportiveness, medium to strong convergent correlations (≥ .40) were observed for the CSI scales. That is, CSI Expressiveness correlated very strongly with lexical Expressiveness (r = .72, p < .01) and CSI Preciseness correlated very strongly with lexical Preciseness (r = .61, p < .01); CSI Verbal Aggressiveness correlated strongly with both lexical Threateningness (r = .51, p < .01) and lexical Niceness (r = –.59, p < .01) and CSI Questioningness correlated strongly with lexical Reflectiveness (r = .50, p < .01). CSI Emotionality correlated moderately strong with lexical Emotionality (r = .40, p < .01), which may be due to the fact that lexical Emotionality also contained adjectives and verbs that reflected “bad temper,” which was also aligned with CSI Verbal Aggressiveness (r = .39, p < .01). As expected, CSI Impression Manipulativeness, which was added to the questionniare based on the importance of communicative behaviors associated with deception and impression management, was not strongly associated with any lexical scales. Unexpectedly, lexical Supportiveness was less well covered by the CSI domain-level scales. Because we expected the facet Nonsupportiveness of Verbal Aggressiveness to be best aligned with lexical Supportiveness, we ran additional facet-level analyses and found the following correlations between the Verbal Aggressiveness facets and lexical Supportiveness: Angriness (r = –.10, p < .01), Authoritarianism (r = –.23, p < .01), Derogatoriness (r = –.34, p < .01), and Nonsupportiveness (r = –.42, p < .01). Consequently, as expected, the CSI facet Nonsupportiveness was best aligned with lexical Supportiveness.

The findings with respect to Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) CSS by and large confirmed our expectations. Very strong correlations were observed between CSI Expressiveness and both CSS Openness (r = .67, p < .01) and Dramatic Communication (r = .60, p < .01); strong correlations were observed between CSI Preciseness and CSS Preciseness (r = .49, p < .01), CSI Verbal Aggressiveness and CSS Interpersonal Sensitivity (r = –.53, p < .01), and CSI Questioningness and both CSS Preciseness (r = .46, p < .01) and CSS Dramatic Communication (r = .50, p < .01). All absolute correlations between the CSI scales and CSS Positive Perception of Silence, Use of Feelings, and Inferring Meaning were lower than .40. The only unexpected finding was the relative lack of relation between the CSI scales and CSS Indirect Communication. In the lexical study of De Vries et al. (2009), CSS Indirect Communication correlated most strongly (negatively) with lexical Expressiveness, but this relation was weak (r = –.27, p < .01) in this study. The strongest relation was observed with CSI Impression Manipulativeness (r = .39, p < .01). When looking at the facets, the Expressiveness facet “Informality” and the Impression Manipulativeness facet “Ingratiation” were most strongly related to CSS Indirect Communication (r = –.45 and .44 respectively, both ps < .01).

Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness showed strong convergent correlations with CSI Verbal Aggressiveness (r = .62, p < .01). Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness also showed the expected relation with CSI Questioningness (r = .48, p < .01). However, Argumentativeness was also related to CSI Expressiveness (r = .48, p < .01) and CSI Emotionality (r = –.44, p < .01). Consequently, from the perspective of the CSI, when people have higher levels of Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness, they are not only more likely to have higher levels of Questioningness but also higher levels of Expressiveness and lower levels of Emotionality.

CSI and Personality

In line with our view of communication styles as an expression of one’s personality, we generally expected relatively strong correlations between the CSI scales and both HEXACO and NEO Personality. As an exception, we expected Impression Manipulativeness to correlate strongly with Honesty-Humility but not with any of the NEO-PI-R domain-level scales. Except for CSI Preciseness, in both the community and the student sample these expectations were confirmed (Table 5). Expressiveness correlated most strongly with both HEXACO and NEO Extraversion, Verbal Aggressiveness correlated most strongly (negatively) with HEXACO and NEO Agreeableness, Questioningness correlated most strongly with HEXACO and NEO Openness to Experience, CSI Emotionality correlated most strongly with HEXACO Emotionality and NEO Neuroticism, and Impression Manipulativeness correlated most strongly (negatively) with HEXACO Honesty-Humility, but not with any of the NEO domain-level scales. Preciseness was only moderately related to HEXACO Conscientiousness (r = .35, p < .01) in the community sample and to NEO Conscientiousness (r = .38, p < .01) in the student sample.⁴

Table 5.

Correlations of the CSI with the HEXACO and NEO Personality Inventories.

	Expressiveness		Preciseness		Verbal aggressiveness		Questioningness		Emotionality		Impression manipulativeness
	C	S	C	S	C	S	C	S	C	S	C	S
HEXACO-PI-R
eXtraversion (X)	.67**	.50**	.09*	.03	−.01	−.19	.31**	.11	−.32**	–.41**	−.00	−.05
Conscientiousness (C)	.09*	−.19	.35**	.25	−.19**	.06	.05	−.10	−.15**	.21	−.13**	−.12
Agreeableness (A)	−.03	−.12	.15**	.00	–.56**	–.52**	−.11**	−.14	−.18**	−.08	−.17**	−.09
Openness to experience (O)	.20**	.14	.10**	.22	.02	−.25*	.53**	.68**	−.11**	.01	.05	.08
Emotionality (E)	−.08*	−.02	−.25**	−.28*	−.09*	−.11	−.13**	−.28*	.67**	.74**	.10**	.08
Honesty-humility (H)	−.10**	−.28*	.06	.00	–.40**	–.40**	−.16**	−.06	.01	.14	–.51**	–.67**
NEO-PI-R
Extraversion		.60**		−.07		−.01		.22		−.33*		.21
Conscientiousness		−.20		.38*		.08		−.19		.04		−.22
Agreeableness		−.31*		.11		–.61**		−.29		.08		−.12
Openness to experience		.25		.17		−.22		.70**		−.18		−.10
Neuroticism		.06		−.31*		.13		−.10		.60**		.23

Note. Absolute correlations ≥ .40 are noted in bold-face.

Conclusions and Discussion

The results of this study seem to offer support for the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI) both psychometrically and in terms of its alignment with the lexical communication dimensions, other communication style instruments, and its association with personality. Apart from the Impression Manipulativeness facet Inscrutableness, all communication style facets loaded on their designated factors and all domain-level scales had high reliabilities (e.g., > .80). The correlations among the CSI scales were generally low and the scales showed a pattern of correlations with the De Vries et al.’s (2009) lexical marker scales, Gudykunst et al.’s (1996) CSS, Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness, and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness that conformed to most of our expectations.

Five of the six CSI scales seem to map on the communication styles domain as uncovered in the lexical study of De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009). Apart from lexical Supportiveness and CSI Impression Manipulativeness, all CSI scales showed medium to high convergent correlations with the lexical marker scales. At the outset, we expected some problems with the lexical Threateningness, Niceness, and Supportiveness scales, because we had been unable to reproduce these dimensions in earlier versions of the CSI. Given the relatively high correlation among the lexical marker scales Threateningness and Niceness (r = –.50 in De Vries et al.’s (2009) study and r = –.54 in this study), this was unsurprising for these two dimensions. However, we had also been unable to construct facets that formed a separate Supportiveness dimension. In the end, based on earlier results, we decided to include items related to supportiveness as a “nonsupportiveness” facet in the Verbal Aggressiveness factor scale. Given the fact that this facet showed the highest correlation with the lexical Supportiveness marker scale, the CSI does seem to map on this dimension too. However, future research might like to add facets related to supportiveness to more fully cover this domain.

Consistent with the definition of communication styles and the lexical study of De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009), the CSI aligned well with the communicative behavior scales of Gudykunst et al. (1996), but not with their intrapersonal cognition scales, Positive Perception of Silence, Use of Feelings, and Inferring Meaning. The only unexpected finding was with respect to CSS Indirect Communication, which did not relate strongly to any of the CSI domain-level scales. However, first of all, this scale had the lowest reliability (.66) of all CSS scales, which may have weakened the possibility of finding strong relations. Second, stronger (|r|> .40) relations were observed at the CSI facet level, with a negative relation between CSS Indirect Communication and the CSI Expressiveness facet Informality and a positive relation with the CSI Impression Manipulativeness facet Ingratiation.⁵ Also consistent with expectations, CSI Verbal Aggressiveness was strongly aligned with Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness. Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness seems to be a combination of not only Questioningness but also of Expressiveness and low Emotionality. At the CSI facet level, Argumentativeness seems to be a combination of high levels of Conversational Dominance (Expressiveness) and Argumentativeness (Questioningness) and low levels of Tension and Defensiveness (Emotionality). This aligns well with Infante and Rancer’s (1982) conceptualization that people high on Argumentativeness are able to “advocate positions on controversial issues and to attack verbally the positions which other people hold on these issues” (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 72), something for which lack of tension and defensiveness and high levels of conversational dominance is required.

As argued in the introduction, someone’s communication style may be viewed as an expression of one’s personality, and thus, by necessity, communication styles should be related to personality. Apart from Impression Manipulativeness, the CSI was primarily constructed based on the lexical communication styles of De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, et al., (2009). Still, strong evidence was found for the relations between the CSI domain-level scales and both HEXACO and NEO personality domain-level scales. Apart from CSI Preciseness, the other five CSI domain-level scales showed strong convergent correlations with the HEXACO personality scales and four of the five CSI domain-level scales showed strong convergent correlations with the NEO personality scales.

Consistent with our conceptualization of Impression Manipulativeness as an additional communicative dimension reflecting manipulative communication behaviors, this domain-level scale was strongly aligned with HEXACO Honesty-Humility. Because the NEO-PI-R does not contain a comparable dimension, no such relation was found between CSI Impression Manipulativeness and any of the NEO personality domain scales. Noteworthy, the Impression Manipulativeness scale contains facets that refer to ingratiation, charm, and concealingness, which some may regard as important for smooth and polite conversation. Most human societies are ambivalent about deception, and although telling outright lies seems to have a skewed distribution in society, with approximately 5% of the people telling 50% of the daily lies (Serota, Levine, & Boster, 2010), using charm and ingratiation in conversations and concealing information may be more prevalent and still seems to be related to dishonesty, as operationalized by the HEXACO-PI-R (Ashton & Lee, 2008; De Vries, Ashton, et al., 2009). Interestingly, in contrast with Honesty-Humility, which shows strong gender differences (almost half a standard deviation higher Honesty-Humility among women, see De Vries, Ashton, et al., 2009), Impression Manipulativeness shows almost no gender differences. Although the nonverbal expression of dishonesty may thus be more prevalent among men, the verbal expression may be more equally distributed.

The most interesting finding of this study is the relative independence of Preciseness from the personality dimensions. Recall that CSI Preciseness shows strong convergent correlations with lexical Preciseness and CSS Preciseness, providing evidence for its construct validity. Although Conscientiousness appears to be most closely aligned with Preciseness, there also appear to be substantial differences between the two. It may thus not necessarily be the case that people who are more organized, diligent, perfectionistic, and prudent in their dealings with time and the physical environment are also more structured, thoughtful, substantive, and concise when communicating with others. Preciseness was found to be the most important predictor of leadership performance in a study by De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, and Oostenveld (2010). According to Hargie and Dickson (2004), well-planned and structured explanations result in greater understanding and better retention of the verbal content, and thus in more successful interpersonal transactions. Preciseness may thus be an important variable in future studies in settings in which the transfer of knowledge or ideas is at the core of somebody’s position and tasks.

The CSI dimensions may inform communication theories in multiple ways. First of all, the dimensions provide a focus to the possible “sender” behaviors in interactions, which we believe vary along the main six dimensions discerned in our study. For instance, Spitzberg and Cupack (1984) argue in their communication competence model that competent communicators (a) are able to distinguish which communicative behaviors are appropriate in a situation, (b) are able and to perform the appropriate communicative behaviors and (c) are motivated to perform the appropriate communicative behaviors. According to this study, in most situations a combination of behaviors along the six CSI dimensions will be needed to describe prototypical “appropriate” behaviors. Thus, as argued above, for a typical leadership situation, high levels of preciseness are needed to be seen as a competent leader. More research is needed to find out what other communicative dimensions are related to perceived competency as a leader, but recent findings suggests that expressiveness is another important candidate (Bakker-Pieper & De Vries, 2011).

Some of the most notable interpersonal communication theories focus on one of the six dimensions as their “core” variable. For instance, the Interpersonal Deception Theory (Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Burgoon et al., 1996) revolves around a sender knowingly transmitting a false belief or conclusion to a receiver, which is akin to Impression Manipulativeness. The dual-process theory of supportive message outcomes (Bodie et al., 2011) focuses on supportive behaviors, which is covered by the (reversed) CSI Nonsupportiveness facet of Verbal Aggressiveness. Infante and Rancer’s (1996) verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness theory focuses on the destructive and constructive forms of assertive behaviors, which, according to the model presented here, are aligned with CSI Verbal Aggressiveness as a destructive expression of an assertive communication style and a combination of high CSI Questioningness, Expressiveness, and low CSI Emotionality as a constructive expression of an assertive communication style.

Another way to use the CSI communication dimensions is to look at combinations of styles in the prediction of important outcomes. Recent theorizing in personality research has focused on the interaction of the main personality dimensions to explain important outcomes. For instance, Oh, Lee, Ashton, & De Vries (2011) have argued and found that high levels of workplace delinquency are a function of low levels of Honesty-Humility in combination with high levels of Extraversion. Similarly, some of the communication styles may interact with each other in the prediction of important outcomes. As an example, and in line with the communication competence model (Spitzberg & Cupack, 1984) and interpersonal deception theory (Buller & Burgoon, 1996), impression manipulativeness may be more successful in transmitting a false belief or conclusion when a person is able to communicate this belief or conclusion with high levels of preciseness and expressiveness. There are many different possible combinations of styles, which may potentially predict many different communication outcomes. Consequently, not only may the six dimensions be instrumental in providing a framework to integrate findings in the area of (interpersonal) communication research but it may also help to formulate new hypotheses to build on—or expand—existing communication theories.

To summarize, this study provides evidence of the reliability and validity of the Commu-nication Styles Inventory (CSI). The CSI appears to be an instrument that captures most of the main lexical dimensions of communication styles and the behavioral communication styles as conceptualized in other communication inventories. In addition, the association of the CSI with personality-based measures suggests that the communication styles can be—to a large extent—considered communicative expressions of personality traits. Although further research is necessary, the CSI may offer theoretical advantages when the goal is to integrate and expand interpersonal communication theories, empirical (prediction) advantages over previous communication style instruments in research among settings in which the core interaction between people is communicative, such as in leadership, sales, teaching, consultancy, counseling, law, and medicine, and practical advantages in assessment situations in which (verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal) communication is the main behavior being exhibited.

Footnotes

Appendix

Items of the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI)

Questionnaire number	Recoded item^a	Facet	Item
Expressiveness
1		Talkativeness	I always have a lot to say.
25		Talkativeness	I have a hard time keeping myself silent when around other people.
49	R	Talkativeness	I am never the one who breaks a silence by starting to talk.
73		Talkativeness	I like to talk a lot.
7		Conversational dominance	I often take the lead in a conversation.
31	R	Conversational dominance	Most of the time, other people determine what the discussion is about, not me.
55		Conversational dominance	I often determine which topics are talked about during a conversation.
79		Conversational dominance	I often determine the direction of a conversation.
13		Humor	Because of my humor, I’m often the centre of attention among a group of people.
37	R	Humor	I have a hard time being humorous in a group.
61		Humor	My jokes always draw a lot of attention.
85		Humor	I often manage to make others burst out laughing.
19	R	Informality	I communicate with others in a distant manner.
43	R	Informality	I behave somewhat formally when I meet someone.
67		Informality	I address others in a very casual way.
91	R	Informality	I come across as somewhat stiff when dealing with people.
Preciseness
2		Structuredness	When I tell a story, the different parts are always clearly related to each other.
26	R	Structuredness	I sometimes find it hard to tell a story in an organized way.
50		Structuredness	I always express a clear chain of thoughts when I argue a point.
74		Structuredness	My stories always contain a logical structure.
8		Thoughtfulness	I think carefully before I say something.
32		Thoughtfulness	I weigh my answers carefully.
56	R	Thoughtfulness	The statements I make are not always well thought out.
80		Thoughtfulness	I choose my words with care.
14		Substantiveness	Conversations with me always involve some important topic.
38		Substantiveness	You won’t hear me jabbering about superficial or shallow matters.
62	R	Substantiveness	I am someone who can often talk about trivial things.
86		Substantiveness	I rarely if ever just chatter away about something.
20		Conciseness	I don’t need a lot of words to get my message across.
44		Conciseness	Most of the time, I only need a few words to explain something.
68	R	Conciseness	I am somewhat long-winded when I need to explain something.
92		Conciseness	With a few words I can usually clarify my point to everybody.
Verbal aggressiveness
3		Angriness	If something displeases me, I sometimes explode with anger.
27	R	Angriness	Even when I’m angry, I won’t take it out on someone else.
51		Angriness	I tend to snap at people when I get annoyed.
75		Angriness	I can sometimes react somewhat irritably to people.
9	R	Authoritarianism	I am not very likely to tell someone what they should do.
33		Authoritarianism	I sometimes insist that others do what I say.
57		Authoritarianism	I expect people to obey when I ask them to do something.
81		Authoritarianism	When I feel others should do something for me, I ask for it in a demanding tone of voice.
15	R	Derogatoriness	I never make fun of anyone in a way that might hurt their feelings.
39		Derogatoriness	I have at times made people look like fools.
63		Derogatoriness	I have been known to be able to laugh at people in their face.
87		Derogatoriness	I have humiliated someone in front of a crowd.
21	R	Nonsupportiveness	I can listen well.
45	R	Nonsupportiveness	I always show a lot of understanding for other people’s problems.
69	R	Nonsupportiveness	I always take time for someone if they want to talk to me.
93	R	Nonsupportiveness	I always treat people with a lot of respect.
Questioningness
4		Unconventionality	I sometimes toss bizarre ideas into a group discussion.
28		Unconventionality	I often say unexpected things.
52		Unconventionality	In discussions, I often put forward unusual points of view.
76		Unconventionality	In conversations, I often toy with some very wild ideas.
10	R	Philosophicalness	I never enter into discussions about the future of the human race.
34		Philosophicalness	I like to talk with others about the deeper aspects of our existence.
58	R	Philosophicalness	I never engage in so-called philosophical conversations.
82		Philosophicalness	I regularly have discussions with people about the meaning of life.
16		Inquisitiveness	During a conversation, I always try to find out about the background of somebody’s opinion.
40	R	Inquisitiveness	I don’t bother asking a lot of questions just to find out why people feel the way they do about something.
64		Inquisitiveness	I ask a lot of questions to uncover someone’s motives.
88		Inquisitiveness	I always ask how people arrive at their conclusions.
22		Argumentativeness	To stimulate discussion, I sometimes express a view different from that of my conversation partner.
46		Argumentativeness	I like to provoke others by making bold statements.
70		Argumentativeness	I try to find out what people think about a topic by getting them to debate with me about it.
94		Argumentativeness	By making controversial statements, I often force people to express a clear opinion.
Emotionality
5		Sentimentality	When I see others cry, I have difficulty holding back my tears.
29	R	Sentimentality	During a conversation, I am not easily overcome by emotions.
53		Sentimentality	When describing my memories, I sometimes get visibly emotional.
77		Sentimentality	People can tell that I am emotionally touched by some topics of conversation.
11		Worrisomeness	When I’m worried about something, I find it hard to talk about anything else.
35		Worrisomeness	I tend to talk about my concerns a lot.
59		Worrisomeness	People can tell when I feel anxious.
83		Worrisomeness	When I worry, everybody notices.
17		Tension	Because of stress, I am sometimes unable to express myself properly.
41		Tension	I can be visibly tense during a conversation.
65	R	Tension	I am able to address a large group of people very calmly.
89		Tension	I find it hard to talk in a relaxed manner when what I have to say is valued highly.
23		Defensiveness	The comments of others have a noticeable effect on me.
47	R	Defensiveness	Nasty remarks from other people do not bother me too much.
71		Defensiveness	When people criticize me, I am visibly hurt.
95		Defensiveness	I am not always able to cope easily with critical remarks.
Impression manipulativeness
6		Ingratiation	I sometimes praise somebody at great length, without being really genuine, in order to make them like me.
30		Ingratiation	In discussions I sometimes express an opinion I do not support in order to make a good impression.
54		Ingratiation	Sometimes I use flattery to get someone in a favorable mood.
78		Ingratiation	To be considered likeable, I sometimes say things my conversation partner likes to hear.
12		Charm	I sometimes use my charm to get something done.
36		Charm	I sometimes flirt a little bit to win somebody over.
60	R	Charm	I would not use my appearance to make people do things for me.
84		Charm	I sometimes put on a very seductive voice when I want something.
18		Inscrutableness	I make sure that people cannot read it from my face when I don’t appreciate them.
42		Inscrutableness	Even when people ask for my thoughts on something, I seldom speak my mind if those thoughts are unacceptable for others.
66		Inscrutableness	I am able to hide negative feelings about other people well.
90	R	Inscrutableness	Other people can easily tell when I think badly about them.
24		Concealingness	I sometimes conceal information to make me look better.
48		Concealingness	I sometimes “forget” to tell something when this is more convenient for me.
72	R	Concealingness	I tell people the whole story, even when this is probably not good for me.
96	R	Concealingness	Even if I would benefit from withholding information from someone, I would find it hard to do so.

1 = 5, 2 = 4, 4 = 2, 5 = 1.

Acknowledgements

Grateful acknowledgement is provided to Suzanne van Beers for her help in an earlier stage of data collection and for Mike Ashton for his help with the translation of the items.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partly funded by a 2009 grant of the NITPB to the first two authors.

Notes

Author Biographies

Reinout E. de Vries is associate professor at VU University Amsterdam. His current main research interests revolve around communication styles, personality, and leadership. He has published about these and related topics in a number of peer-reviewed communication science and psychology journals.

Angelique Bakker-Pieper is a PhD student at VU University Amsterdam. Her research project pertains to the communication styles of leaders.

Femke E. Konings received a MSc in both communications and sociology from the University of Amsterdam. She is currently working for commercial market research organization doing analysis and consulting work in the book publishing industry.

Barbara Schouten is an assistant professor at the University of Amsterdam, department of Communication Science. She is involved in research and teaching on intercultural health communication. Publications include topics on intercultural health communication, HIV/AIDS prevention and migrant identity.

References

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2008). The prediction of honesty-humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1216-1228.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

Perugini

Szarota

de Vries

R. E.

Di Blas

. . . De Raad

(2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356-366.

Bakker-Pieper

De Vries

R. E.

(2011, May 25-28). The incremental validity of communication styles over personality traits for leader outcomes. Poster presented at the 15th EAWOP Conference, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Beatty

M. J.

(1998). Future directions in communication trait theory and research. In McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

Martin

M. M.

Beatty

M. J.

(Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 309-319). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bodie

G. D.

Burleson

B. R.

Gill-Rosier

McCullough

J.D.

Holmstrom

A. J.

Rack

J. J.

. . . Mincy

(2011). Explaining the impact of attachment style on evaluations of supportive messages: A dual-process framework. Communication Research, 38, 228-247.

Buller

D. B.

Burgoon

J. K.

(1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.

Buller

M. K.

Buller

D. B.

(1987). Physicians’ communication style and patient satisfaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 375-388.

Burgoon

J. K.

Buller

D. B.

Floyd

Grandpre

(1996). Deceptive realities. Sender, receiver, and observer perspectives in deceptive conversations. Communication Research, 23, 724-748.

Burgoon

J. K.

Hale

J. L.

(1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.

10.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

11.

Daly

J. A.

Bippus

A. M.

(1998). Personality and interpersonal communication: Issues and directions. In McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

Martin

M. M.

Beatty

M. J.

(Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 1-40). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

12.

Eysenck

S. G. B.

Eysenck

H. J.

Barrett

(1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29.

13.

De Vries

R. E.

Born

M. Ph.

(2011). Broad versus narrow traits: Conscientiousness and Honesty-Humility as predictors of academic criteria. European Journal of Personality.

14.

De Vries

R. E.

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2009). De zes belangrijkste persoonlijkheidsdimensies en de HEXACO persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst [The six most important personality dimensions and the HEXACO Personality Inventory]. Gedrag & Organisatie, 22, 232-274.

15.

De Vries

R. E.

Bakker-Pieper

Alting Siberg

Van Gameren

Vlug

(2009). The content and dimensionality of communication styles. Communication Research, 36, 178-206.

16.

De Vries

R. E.

Bakker-Pieper

Oostenveld

(2010). Leadership = Communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 367-380.

17.

De Vries

R. E.

De Vries

De Hoogh

A. H. B.

Feij

J. A.

(2009). More than the Big Five: Egoism and the HEXACO model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 23, 635-654.

18.

De Vries

R. E.

Van Kampen

(2010). The HEXACO and 5DPT Models of personality: A comparison and their relationships with psychopathy, egoism, pretentiousness, immorality, and Machiavellianism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 244-257.

19.

DePaulo

B. M.

Lindsay

J. J.

Malone

B. E.

Muhlenbruck

Charlton

Cooper

(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118.

20.

Feist

G. J.

(2006). Theories of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

21.

Frank

M. G.

Ekman

(2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 486-495.

22.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

23.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

24.

Gudykunst

W. B.

Matsumoto

Ting Toomey

Nishida

Kim

Heyman

(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543.

25.

Hargie

Dickson

(2004). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory, and practice. London, UK: Routledge.

26.

Heisel

A. D.

La France

B. H.

Beatty

M. J.

(2003). Self-reported extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism as predictors of peer rated verbal aggressiveness and affinity-seeking competence. Communication Monographs, 70, 1-15.

27.

Hoekstra

H. A.

Ormel

De Fruyt

(1996). Handleiding bij de NEO persoonlijkheids vragenlijsten NEO-PI-R en NEO-FFI [Manual of the NEO personality inventories NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI]. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

28.

Infante

D.A.

Rancer

A.S.

(1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.

29.

Infante

D. A.

Rancer

A. S.

(1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In Burleson

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 319-351). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

30.

Infante

D. A.

Wigley

C. J.

III . (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

31.

Johnson

S. D.

Bechler

(1998). Examining the relationship between listening effectiveness and leadership emergence: Perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small Group Research, 29, 452-471.

32.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.

33.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76, 1001-1053.

34.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

De Vries

R. E.

(2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179-197.

35.

Lee

Gizzarone

Ashton

M. C.

(2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually harass. Sex Roles, 49, 59-69.

36.

Leung

S. K.

Bond

M. H.

(2001). Interpersonal communication and personality: Self and other perspectives. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 69-86.

37.

Levine

T. R.

Serota

K. B.

Shulman

H. C.

(2010). The impact of Lie to Me on viewers’ actual ability to detect deception. Communication Research, 37, 847-856.

38.

Levine

T. R.

Shaw

Shulman

H. C.

(2010). Assessing deception detection accuracy with dichotomous truth-lie judgments and continuous scaling: Are people really more accurate when honesty is scaled? Communication Research Reports, 27, 112-122.

39.

McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

Martin

M. M.

Beatty

M. J.

(1998). Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

40.

Noller

White

(1990). The validity of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 2, 478-482.

41.

Norton

R. W.

(1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4, 99-112.

42.

Norton

R. W.

(1983). Communicator Style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

43.

Notarantonio

E. M.

Cohen

J. L.

(1990). The effects of open and dominant communication styles on perceptions of the sales interaction. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 171-184.

44.

I. S.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

De Vries

R. E.

(2011). Are dishonest extraverts more harmful than disintroverts? The interaction effects of honesty-humility and extraversion in predicting workplace deviance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 496-516.

45.

Ritchie

L. D.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(1990). Family communication patterns—Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523-544.

46.

Rubin

R. B.

Rubin

A. M.

Graham

E. F.

Perse

E. M.

Seibold

D. R.

(2009). Communication research measures II: A sourcebook. New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

Serota

K. B.

Levine

T. R.

Boster

F. J.

(2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36, 2-25.

48.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

(1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

49.

Vrij

Mann

(2004). Detecting deception: The benefit of looking at a combination of behavioral, auditory and speech content related cues in a systematic manner. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 61-79.

50.

Weaver

J. B.

(2005). Mapping the links between personality and communicator style. Individual Differences Research, 3, 59-70.