LISTENING 1

Running head: LISTENING

Listening as Positive Communication

Graham D. Bodie

The Louisiana State University

To appear in Socha, T., & Pitts, M. (Eds.). The positive side of interpersonal communication.

New York: Peter Lang.

Author’s Note

Graham Bodie, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, The Louisiana State

University.

Correspondence should be addressed to Graham Bodie, Department of Communication

Studies, LSU, 136 Coates Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; email: [email protected].
 LISTENING 2

Listening as Positive Communication

At age 17, Byron Pitts was a first year college student a midterm away from flunking out.

One particularly memorable day began as his English professor handed back his most recent

essay marked with a D+. Shortly after hearing “You are wasting my time and the government’s

money.”, Mr. Pitts began filling out the papers to withdraw from school. Fortunately for Mr.

Pitts, a stranger took the time to listen to his story. As Mr. Pitts describes it, “She stopped. She

helped me…She was encouraging, just like my mother and other people in my life, and she

planted seeds of kindness in me and optimism”.1

Although there is much that could be analyzed from this story, the relationship between

Mr. Pitts and his new unofficial mentor began with her willingness to listen. Indeed, listening is

deeply rooted in the context of its ability to help create, maintain, and enhance positive

interpersonal relationships. One might go as far as to say that listening is the quintessential

positive interpersonal communication behavior as it connotes an appreciation of and an interest

in the other. Such a statement is not without its empirical warrant: Research shows that feeling

“listened to” (Notarius & Herrick, 1988) or “being heard” (Myers, 2000) is vitally important for

many types of conversations and is an expected part of many relationships from early childhood

to the end of life. Good listening is an important aspect of parenting (Duncan, Coatsworth, &

Greenberg, 2009), marital relationships (Pasupathi, Carstensen, Levenson, & Gottman, 1999),

salesperson performance (Castleberry & Shepherd, 1993), customer satisfaction (de Ruyter &

Wetzels, 2000), and healthcare provision (Watanuki, Tracy, & Lindquist, 2006); and the list

could go on. Good listeners can enhance others’ ability to cope with (Jones, 2011) and

remember events (Pasupathi, Stallworth, & Murdoch, 1998); they are more liked, rated as more

attractive (Argyle & Cook, 1976), and garner more trust (Mechanic & Meyer, 2000) than those
 LISTENING 3

less proficient; and they have higher academic motivation and achievement (Imhof, 2001;

Schrodt, Wheeless, & Ptacek, 2000), better socio-emotional development (Jalongo, 2010), and a

higher likelihood of upward mobility in the workplace (Sypher, Bostrom, & Seibert, 1989).

Adding to the importance of listening, research finds that natural decrements in the ability to

process speech can negatively impact individual and relational health and well-being (Villaume,

Brown, & Darling, 1994).

Despite the recognition of listening as a positive element of communication, many

scholars claim listening is the “‘Cinderella skill’ of language, eclipsed by its sister skills of

speaking, reading and writing” (Jalongo, 2010, p. 11). There is evidence, for instance, that

educators have “spent a disproportionate amount of time on teaching speaking as opposed to

teaching listening” (Janusik, 2010, p. 193); and scholarly attention allotted to listening has paled

in comparison to that paid message production (Bodie, 2011). Thus, listening seems “a kind of

human behavior that almost everyone thinks important” (C. Weaver, 1972, p. 24), though this

importance is not always matched by fervent academic inquiry (Bodie, 2010b).

One potential reason for this paradox is that although listening has been studied in a

range of specific contexts like social support and physician-patient interaction, it is less often

incorporated into theoretical frameworks that allow for more comprehensive empirical study.

Indeed, most of the research employing the term listening within communication research has

either (a) focused so narrowly on its role in the classroom thus limiting listening to a type of

information processing stripped from its inherent connection with human communication and

relational processes (Bostrom, 2011) or (b) cast such a broad net defining listening as a single

behavior thus suggesting its component parts are unworthy of systematic study (Bodie & Jones,

in press). This chapter suggests that listening be incorporated into a variety of theoretical
 LISTENING 4

perspectives that can speak to the role and function of an assortment of interdependent

communicative actions and behaviors. More specifically, this chapter attempts to provide a

broader conceptualization of listening and to serve as a ready resource of the myriad perspectives

through which one can come to understand the positive potential of the complex phenomenon

known to communication scholars as listening. In service of this aim, this review is organized in

three sections. Section one sketches a brief history of the study of listening within the

communication discipline. Drawing from the work of Kaplan (1964), the second section shows

that this history has treated listening primarily as a construct rather than a theoretical term. As a

consequence, the term listening is used infrequently and a host of other terms have been

developed that obscure the evidence for the positive potential of listening. The conclusion

focuses on directions for future research and theory building efforts to advance our knowledge of

listening as an essential component of human interaction.

Defining and Measuring Listening: A Brief History

Although earlier writings exist, many attribute Nichols’s (1948) identification of “factors

which accounted for differences in the comprehension of expository materials presented orally in

a classroom situation” (p. 155) as the catalyst for the systematic study of listening in

communication research. Undergraduates in this study were asked to listen to six, 10-minute

lectures and answer a multiple choice test after each. Student participants averaged 68% on the

composite listening test with higher scores related to both individual (e.g., intelligence) and

situational factors (e.g., listener fatigue). Subsequent interviews with instructors of students

scoring in the top and bottom tertiles of the test revealed that good, compared to poor, listeners

were “more attentive during classroom activities and more conscientious in their…work habits”

(p. 160). From these data, Nichols concluded that factors likely to discriminate among good and
 LISTENING 5

poor listeners should be afforded empirical attention in the communication discipline and that

instructional efforts should be aimed at improving student ability to comprehend aural input.

This study was most important, however, because it suggested a conceptualization of listening

that set the research agenda throughout the 1980s (see also Bodie, Worthington, Imhof, &

Cooper, 2008).

Listening as Lecture Comprehension

Early communication scholarship was primarily concerned with identifying specific skills

necessary to attain competency in various areas (e.g., public speaking, listening) and designing

interventions to make students more proficient (Bostrom, 2011). Thus, combined with the

conceptualization of listening set forth by Nichols, it is not surprising that early listening

research almost exclusively focused on designing standardized tests of lecture comprehension.

In general, these tests included at least one measure of memory for facts presented in a lecture,

and most utilized multiple choice questions scored as right or wrong (for review see Watson &

Barker, 1984). The fact that these standard elements of listening tests were also found in tests of

reading comprehension and tests of mental ability led Kelly (1965) to argue that these “tests

consist essentially of …comprehension questions... whose accuracy perhaps depends primarily

upon mental factors that are far from specific to audition” (p. 139). Kelly showed that the

correlation between two commercially available and widely used listening comprehension tests –

the Brown-Carlsen Listening Test (BCLT; Brown & Carlsen, 1955) and the Sequential Tests of

Educational Progress (STEP; Service, 1957) – was similar in magnitude to the correlation

between each listening test and a test of general mental ability.2 From these data he concluded

that (a) “our traditional procedures for testing listening are sterile,” (b) “currently published
 LISTENING 6

listening tests are not valid measures of a unique skill,” and (c) “listening should be considered a

complex of activities, not a unitary skill” ” (C. M. Kelly, 1967, p. 456).

Listening as a Complex of Skills

Viewing listening as a complex of skills meant conceptualizing listening as a set of

abilities, some of which are related to other language abilities like reading, some of which are

related to mental acuity and intelligence, and some of which are unique to aural processing (see

C. Weaver, 1972, pp. 9-10). Research conducted prior to Kelly’s study suggested that

processing speech was a distinct language ability (for review see Caffrey, 1955), and several

large-scale factor analytic studies around the time of Kelly’s work proposed “a constellation of

interrelated listening abilities” (Lundsteen, 1966, p. 311). This line of thinking, along with

research questioning the validity of existing tests, spearheaded efforts in the 1970s and 1980s to

develop multidimensional tests of listening comprehension.

Each multidimensional test developed during this time held the assumption that there

exists some identifiable set of skills that can be taught in order for a person to become a good

listener, though agreement about which skills to include was far from universal (Brownell, 2010;

Ridge, 1993). The two leading tests were the Watson-Barker Listening Test (WBLT; Watson,

Barker, Roberts, & Roberts, 2001) and the Kentucky Comprehensive Listening Test (KCLT;

Bostrom & Waldhart, 1983), each of which was developed to measure five components of

listening. The KCLT was developed to measure short-, intermediate-, and long-term listening

abilities, reflecting the relationship between listening and memory, whereas the WBLT focuses

on interpersonal listening abilities chosen to reflect the most basic skills necessary for listening

proficiency within academic settings (e.g., following directions).

 LISTENING 7

These tests were quite influential for a variety of reasons. First, their development

spawned a litany of research aimed to demonstrate their validity, and this research was basically

the whole of listening research during the 1980s and 1990s (Rhodes, Watson, & Barker, 1990).

Unfortunately, research has yet to generate a stable factor structure for either the WBLT or

KCLT or to offer much published validity evidence (Bodie, Worthington, & Fitch-Hauser,

2011). Second, the “methodological fixation” driving research during this time (Bostrom, 2011)

appears to have promoted concerns about how to “correctly define” listening (see ILA, 1995). A

focus on defining listening was also extended to alternative views.

Listening as Responding

The first alternative view to listening as comprehension attempted to shift the focus from

something internal to the listener to her overt behavior. Scholars began discussing listening

competence (as opposed to comprehension), which was defined as a judgment made by an

interlocutor based on a range of verbal (e.g., asking questions, paraphrasing) and nonverbal (e.g.,

eye contact, backchannel responses) behaviors that can be executed more or less skillfully (for

review see Bodie, St. Cyr, Pence, Rold, & Honeycutt, in press). Primary among the concerns of

these scholars were developing measures that could capture “good listening” in particular

contexts and attempting to compare self-reports of competent listening to those obtained by close

others and trained observers (e.g., Cooper & Husband, 1993).

Although largely accepted today, defining listening as a compilation of verbal and

paraverbal actions that “signal listening has taken place” was contested by some (for review see

Ridge, 1993). Weaver (1972) first suggested the term listening be reserved to describe the

cognitive processes internal to a communicator as she took on the role of message recipient, a

position that was popular with a range of scholars throughout the 1980s. When the debate finally
 LISTENING 8

settled, behaviors encompassing the listening response were largely drawn from the work of

Gordon (1975) and the term “active listening.” Indeed, this debate occurred around the same

time that Rogerian methods for therapy were being applied to a variety of academic disciplines.

To date, active listening is used most often to describe how listeners should act in a range of

contexts, even though the evidence supporting this claim is scant (see Weger, Castle, & Emmett,

2010) and some research suggests that engaging in typical active listening behaviors is likely less

effective than “normal” listening practices (Armstrong, 1998; Pasupathi, et al., 1999).

Listening as Relating

One important context for listening is the interpersonal relationship within which it takes

place. Especially when used to refer to an action that occurs in close relationships, listening

generally suggests an active presence of another individual who is typically acting with empathic

tendencies (Bodie, in press; Gearhart & Bodie, 2011). In close relationships, listening signals

affection, support, empathy, and understanding; “to listen” is a positive characterization made of

others who are attentive and empathic during interaction (Notarius & Herrick, 1988).3

In general, listening as relating offers views of the active-empathic nature of listening,

one from the perspective of the individual; the other from the perspective of the relationship.

From the perspective of an individual, listening is an orientation toward openness to being

completely aware (i.e., “empty”) to what is happening in and around us (Lipari, 2010). This

“style” of listening is juxtaposed with ways of listening that are more oriented toward acquiring

and critiquing information (Bodie, 2010a; Watson, Barker, & Weaver, 1995). From the

perspective of the relationship, listening is a relationally constituted process (Rhodes, 1993),

something that occurs within a dyadic system and helps to define that system (Halone &

Pecchioni, 2001; Pecchioni & Halone, 2000). Using this conceptualization, listening is defined
 LISTENING 9

in a manner similar to some definitions of intimacy (Reis, 1990) and social support (Burleson,

Albrecht, Goldsmith, & Sarason, 1994).

Though grounded in theory, little research has explored the ramifications of these

speculations. For instance, measures for attitudes and predispositions toward active-empathic

listening have only recently been developed (Bodie, in press; Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington,

2006; Mishima, Kubota, & Nagata, 2000) or have questionable validity (Bodie & Worthington,

2010), and no research has sought to verify that these attitudes actually lead to more effective

listening. Though some research suggests that “active engagement” may enhance relational

satisfaction (Fassaert, van Dulmen, Schellevis, & Bensing, 2007), the precise communicative

actions that lead such outcomes are largely unspecified (Bodie & Jones, in press).

Perspectives on Listening: A Synthesis and Selective Review

Though listening has been defined in numerous ways, those outlined above have been the

most notable themes in research to date. Starting with the work of Nichols, listening has largely

been conceptualized as an aural processing competency that helps (or hinders) student learning

and employee performance. Similar research suggests competence in listening is facilitated by a

host of specific skills and manifest in various behavioral responses that are likely employed

differently and mean different things within unique relational contexts. Though each perspective

on listening has its individual limitations, it is perhaps more informative to focus on a set of

shared limitations and to offer a potential solution that fosters a conceptual space for the study of

listening as an integrated part of positive interpersonal communication.

The first general limitation of past work on listening is how the term has been treated.

Grounded in pragmatism, Kaplan (1964) recognized that the utility of a concept depends on its

use and suggested that terms can be conceptualized as either constructs or theoretical terms.
 LISTENING 10

While a construct is defined individually and in relationship with observables, a theoretical term

derives its meaning “from the part it plays in the whole theory in which it is embedded, and from

the role of theory itself” (p. 56). To date, listening has largely been treated as a construct. For

example, tests of listening comprehension are fundamentally based on the idea “that if scholars

could develop a clear, comprehensive, and consensually agreed upon definition of [listening] and

create reliable and valid measures of that concept, then we could get about the business of

developing an encompassing theory” of listening (Wilson & Sabee, 2003, p. 7). Although some

models of listening have been based on theoretical perspectives like human information

processing (Goss, 1982), schema theory (Fitch-Hauser, 1984), or theories of memory (Bostrom

& Waldhart, 1988; Janusik, 2005), the goal of most extant research has been to create a

consensual definition of listening and, subsequently, measures that assess all of its constituent

parts (ILA, 1995; Fitch-Hauser & Hughes, 1988). Even when scholars do discuss the need to

theorize about listening, the sentiment is that “in order to develop a theory we must first agree

upon a definition of the [construct]” (Barker, Barker, & Fitch-Hauser, 1987, p. 15).

Listening should, instead, be viewed as a theoretical term and allowed various meanings

depending on the practical purpose pursued by an individual or team of scholars (see also Bodie,

2010b). Treating listening as a theoretical term moves us away from concerns over definitional

harmony and towards attempting to understand listening in all its complexity. To agree on a

definition necessitates that scholars are working from similar assumptions with similar goals and

under similar sets of rules for what listening means, why it is important, and how it might

positively impact outcomes. To borrow an analogy from Zebrowitz (2001): Communication

scholars who lack a theoretical framework to explain listening are “like the blind men [in the
 LISTENING 11

John Saxe poem The Blind Men and the Elephant], who lacked an overarching theory of

elephantness and could not find it through local observations” (p. 334).

The second general limitation of past work on listening seems to follow from the first –

when scholars become primarily motivated to assemble the definition of a term, thus treating it

as a construct, its theoretical association with other phenomena is largely ignored. Consequently,

the extant literature becomes littered with a host of terms that seem to describe ostensibly

analogous processes. Several have highlighted this problem in the literature on communication

competence with terms such as social competence, interpersonal competence, social skills, and

communicative competence being used interchangeably and often defined quite similarly (see

Wilson & Sabee, 2003). Likewise, terms such as conversational involvement, conversational

sensitivity, interpersonal sensitivity, and interaction involvement also seem to tap a component

of what most would typically label listening. Instead of viewing listening as a term that deserves

theoretical understanding and can help to link various lines of research, scholars seem intent on

forwarding new terms and content with treating “the term ‘good listener’ ... [as merely]

synonymous for a caring, other-oriented person” (Bostrom, 1990, p. 7).

In general, listening has been recognized as a multidimensional construct that consists of

complex (a) cognitive processes, such as attending to, understanding, receiving and interpreting

content and relational messages (Imhof, 2010); (b) affective processes, such as being motivated

to attend to those messages (C. Weaver, 1972); and (c) behavioral processes, such as responding

with verbal and nonverbal feedback (Weger, et al., 2010). As a cognitive phenomenon, listening

is linked to cognitive complexity (Burleson, 2011), interaction involvement (Cegala, 1981),

conversational sensitivity (Daly, Vangelisti, & Daughton, 1988), perspective taking (Ebesu

Hubbard, 2009), and various information processing dispositions (e.g., styles of thinking; Bodie,
 LISTENING 12

2010a, Study 3; need for cognition; Worthington, 2008). “Good” listeners are also described as

more likely to hold certain attitudes like empathic concern (J. B. Weaver, III & Kirtley, 1995)

and a willingness to listen (C. V. Roberts & Vinson, 1998) or to formulate certain listening goals

that increase attentiveness to others in conversation (Burleson, 2011). Similarly, listening seems

to share conceptual space with other terms used to describe behavioral involvement including

dimensions such as immediacy, expressiveness, interaction management, and altercentrism

(Coker & Burgoon, 1987) and adaptation and coordination (Ebesu Hubbard, 2009).

Taken together, when we talk about “good listening” we are likely talking about a variety

of skills and abilities, some of which have been afforded extensive empirical attention, though

their nomological connection to listening has yet to be clearly specified. In many areas of

interpersonal communication, especially those like social support and the communication of

rapport that are inherently related to the “positive side”, scholars largely ignore listening as a

central and important component in their research (Bodie, 2011). This is quite surprising given

that a good deal of positive interpersonal communication research at least implicitly recognizes

listening as an important concept, and the term is used quite often when scholars are asked about

the practical implications of their research (e.g., Burleson, 2007). It is likely, therefore, that

myriad theories can be used to locate listening as a theoretical term. A sample of those theories

is provided in Table 1 with the corresponding definition of listening suggested within each

specific theoretical framework. While some of these definitions have been explicitly stated (e.g.,

Burleson, 2011; Powers & Witt, 2008), others were derived based on the use of similar terms

within theories (e.g., Coker & Burgoon, 1987) and/or applications by other scholars (e.g., Schrodt,

2008). Though an in-depth analysis of each theory and the entire range of implications for

listening is beyond the scope of this chapter, the sections that follow attempt to highlight relevant
 LISTENING 13

literature from within a sample of these frameworks to illustrate the positive potential of listening

in its many definitional forms.

The Positive Potential of Listening within Affection Exchange Theory

Affectionate communication is “an individual’s intentional and overt enactment or

expression of feelings of closeness, care, and fondness for another” (Floyd & Morman, 1998, p.

145). According to affection exchange theory (AET), both the expression and reception of

affection serves fundamental human needs (Floyd, 2006). From this perspective, listening is one

type of affectionate communication (see Pendell, 2002) that fosters intimate interaction by

enhancing feelings of being understood, a vital component of interpersonal need fulfillment

(Prager & Buhrmester, 1998). When we feel “listened to” and understood, we are more satisfied

with our relationships and life in general; this increased well-being can also have a profound

effect on physical health. Not only does listening positively influence the recipient, but the

listener can also garner positive outcomes (Notarius & Herrick, 1988). As reviewed by Floyd

(2006) the communication of affection is vital to a variety of close relationships, making a

fruitful area for future research the documentation of specific roles listening plays in this process.

The Positive Potential of Listening within Constructivism

Constructivism attempts to explain how people accomplish social goals by appealing to

the role of social perception (Burleson & Bodie, 2008). In general, this framework proposes that

our cognitive structures help determine how we will produce and process messages and manage

social interactions. Constructivist-based theories of communication propose that high quality

messages, whether those messages are aimed at persuading, informing, or comforting, are more

tailored to the subjective viewpoint of the recipient (i.e., "person centered"; Burleson & Rack,

2008). From this perspective, skilled listening is defined as efficiently and effectively
 LISTENING 14

“interpreting the communicative behavior of others in the effort to understand the meaning and

implications of that behavior” and to ultimately respond appropriately (i.e., in a person-centered

manner; Burleson, 2011). Using this definition, listening is located as an information processing

task that can be done more or less competently, a view shared by several other theories listed in

Table 1 (e.g., planning theory, relational framing theory).

In place of the term listening, constructivist scholars have investigated interpersonal

cognitive complexity or the sophistication of others’ understanding of people, relationships, and

actions in the social world. People who are more cognitively complex are better able to (a)

“store, retrieve, organize, and generate information about people and social situations … [which]

enables them to make better judgments and decisions in the social world” (Burleson & Rack,

2008, p. 54); (b) take the perspective of another and, thus, (c) craft highly person-centered

messages which are more likely to assist in reaching social goals, particularly when dealing with

complex situations (Burleson & Caplan, 1998).4 These more proficient listeners tend to employ

more sophisticated persuasive, comforting, regulative, and informative messages and model

these competencies for their offspring (Burleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1995).

The Positive Potential of Listening within Family Communication Patterns

Like constructivism, research on family communication patterns (FCPs) suggests that

communication within families and the values families place on communication help to explain

the intergenerational transmission of communication attitudes, predispositions, and styles. That

is, a primary reason that adult children manifest particular ways of relating and communicating

with close relational partners (friends, romantic partners) is because of how they were taught to

think about and value communication from their parents. Perhaps the most influential theory of

FCPs has been aided by the two-dimensional typology of Fitzpatrick and her colleagues (for
 LISTENING 15

review see Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). This typology asserts that FCPs are determined by two

underlying orientations toward communication, orientations that reflect both how families talk

and how families think about communication. The conversation orientation reflects “a climate in

which all family members are encouraged to participate in unrestrained interactions about a wide

array of topics,” whereas the conformity orientation reflects a climate that places a premium on

harmony, particularly concerning values and beliefs (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 39). As

listening is concerned, families exhibiting a higher conversational orientation are more likely

than families with a high conformity orientation to entertain a variety of opinions, enjoy talking

(and listening) to one another, and value the importance of understanding each other irrespective

of agreement or dissention; indeed, several items on the primary instrument used to assess these

orientations highlight the role played by listening (e.g., My parents like to hear my opinions,

even when they don’t agree with me).

As stated by Schrodt (2008), however, “while listening is an implicit part of both the

theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the FCP research tradition, researchers have

generally neglected how listening facilitates the development and communication of family

conversation and conformity orientations during the socialization of family members” (p. 2).

The one study to date that has directly addressed the relationship between listening attitudes and

communication patterns within families found that adult children from families high in

conversation and low in conformity orientation were less likely to report anxiety toward

listening. The authors suggest that “when families create an environment where family members

are encouraged to openly discuss a variety of topics, children may be more likely to learn how to

process complex and ambiguous information without anxiety” (Ledbetter & Schrodt, 2008, p.

397). Schrodt (2008) further outlines three key developmental stages (early childhood,
 LISTENING 16

adolescence, emerging adulthood) representing the family life cycle “where listening may be

particularly important for family socialization” (p. 3); future research thus seems bright for

uncovering how listening can “carry conversation and conformity orientations from one

generation to the next” (p. 4).

The Positive Potential of Listening within Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

The focus of leader member exchange theory (LMX) is on enhancing organizational

success and promoting “more effective leadership through the development and maintenance of

mature leadership relationships” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 220). LMX primarily focuses on

the relationship between leaders and followers and suggests “that effective leadership processes

occur when leaders and followers are able to develop mature leadership relationships

(partnerships) and thus gain access to the many benefits these relationships bring” (p. 225). In

general, as the quality of the exchange between leaders and followers increases, positive

outcomes such as increased performance, commitment, satisfaction, and loyalty are more likely,

and negative outcomes such as stress and burnout are less likely.

Although LMX does not detail specific behaviors likely to foster partnerships among

leaders and followers, it stands to reason that “listening leaders” are more likely to foster

partnerships than leaders who are not perceived to understand subordinate needs (Steil &

Bommelje, 2004). Some empirical work is available to back this speculation. For example,

programs that train supervisors in listening and “feedback skills” as well as social support can

increase the quality of partnerships (Graen, 1989), and research consistently mentions listening

to problems and being attentive as important behaviors that assist the creation of partnerships

(see Anderson & Williams, 1996). Likewise, items on a popular scale assessing organizational

climate seem to suggest the importance of listening (e.g., X values my contribution to its well-
 LISTENING 17

being; X would ignore any complaint from me) (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa,

1986). In general, listening is proposed to be an important element of partnership building,

which is linked to job satisfaction, commitment, and productivity. Since most past research on

this topic only leads to informed speculations about the role of listening within organizations,

however, research is needed to detail those specific elements of listening most important for

fostering positive organizational relationships and a supportive organizational climate.

Conclusion

Scholars from a variety of fields have investigated listening from multiple perspectives,

providing a rather large literature scattered across specializations (Bodie, et al., 2008). Within

communication scholarship, listening is often portrayed as a key component to effective

communication and is cast as a fundamental competency in close, personal and professional

relationships as well as for students of all ages. Research on social support demonstrates

listening as one of the most helpful behaviors in times of distress, and scholars readily assert that

listening is an important component of managing conflict, promoting intimacy, succeeding as a

leader, and creating a client-centered business model (for reviews see Bodie, 2011; Bodie &

Fitch-Hauser, 2010). Indeed, when we provide “a sympathetic ear” we are doing more than

receiving and processing information (Floyd, 2006, p. 34), we are displaying to others that they

matter; we are, in essence, stopping, encouraging, and planting seeds of kindness and optimism.

From the extant literature across communication and allied fields, it is clear that listening

is an important and positive communication behavior. Even so, the positive potential of listening

has yet to be fully realized perhaps because the term has yet to be fully incorporated into a

variety of theoretical frameworks that pose distinct roles and functions for the cognitive and

behavioral components of this complex social skill. To date, the full realization of listening’s
 LISTENING 18

positive potential has been limited by research treating it as a construct and by the proliferation

of other terms that are merely synonyms for what we attempt to understand, listening. By

treating listening, instead, as a theoretical term, scholars are warranted in defining listening in

multiple ways and encouraged to incorporate the term into theoretical frameworks capable of

explaining how listening works and functions to the betterment of people’s lives. If our ultimate

goal is to train or teach someone how to be a better listener (which it often is) as opposed to

understanding listening in some theoretical sense, a theoretical structure can aid in choosing

relevant skills upon which to focus. This approach not only reduces the number of skills to a

more manageable subset, thus allying concerns relevant to test construction, it also stands to aid

in theory building (and presumably better training outcomes) (Ridge, 1993).

Overall, this chapter has attempted to provide an historical sketch of the research on

listening and how the term has been treated in past communication scholarship. In addition, I

have suggested a re-conceptualization of listening as a theoretical term, the purpose of which

was to carve a more sophisticated conceptual space for its study. By unpacking the implicit

recognition of listening and making the term a more central focus of our research we can begin

to fully appreciate listening as the positive force it is suggested to be.

 LISTENING 19

References

Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to

helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 282-296.

Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. London: Cambridge.

Armstrong, M. N. (1998). Active listening and the speaker: How does that make you feel?

Unpublished Honors thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria.

Barker, D. R., Barker, L. L., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (1987). Listening as a hypothetical construct.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Listening Association.

Beatty, M. J., & Payne, S. (1984). Listening comprehension as a function of cognitive

complexity: A research note. Communication Monographs, 51, 85-89.

Berger, C. R. (2008). Planning theory of communication: Goal attainment through

communicative action. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in

interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 89-101). Los Angeles: Sage.

Bodie, G. D. (2010a). The Revised Listening Concepts Inventory (LCI-R): Assessing individual

and situational differences in the conceptualization of listening. Imagination, Cognition,

and Personality, 30, 301-339.

Bodie, G. D. (2010b). Treating listening ethically. International Journal of Listening, 24, 185-

188.

Bodie, G. D. (2011a). The understudied nature of listening in interpersonal communication:

Introduction to a special issue. International Journal of Listening, 25, 1-9.

Bodie, G. D. (in press). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and

validity evidence. Communication Quarterly.

 LISTENING 20

Bodie, G. D., Burleson, B. R., Gill-Rosier, J. N., McCullough, J. D., Holmstrom, A. J., Rack, J.

J., et al. (2011). Explaining the impact of attachment style on evaluations of supportive

messages: A dual-process framework. Communication Research, 38, 228-247.

Bodie, G. D., Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., Rack, J. J., McCullough, J. D., Hanasono, L., et

al. (in press). Effects of cognitive complexity and emotional upset on processing

supportive messages: Two tests of a dual-process theory of supportive communication

outcomes. Human Communication Research.

Bodie, G. D., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (2010). Quantitative research in listening: Explication and

overview. In A. D. Wolvin (Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st

century (pp. 46-93). Oxford: Blackwell.

Bodie, G. D., & Jones, S. M. (in press). The nature of supportive listening II: The role of verbal

person centeredness and nonverbal immediacy. Western Journal of Communication.

Bodie, G. D., St. Cyr, K., Pence, M., Rold, M., & Honeycutt, J. M. (in press). Listening

competence in initial interactions I: Distinguishing between what listening is and what

listeners do. International Journal of Listening.

Bodie, G. D., & Worthington, D. L. (2010). Revisiting the Listening Styles Profile (LSP-16): A

confirmatory factor analytic approach to scale validation and reliability estimation.

International Journal of Listening, 24, 69-88.

Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D. L., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (2011). A comparison of four

measurement models for the Watson-Barker Listening Test (WBLT)-Form C.

Communication Research Reports, 28, 32-42.

 LISTENING 21

Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D. L., Imhof, M., & Cooper, L. (2008). What would a unified field of

listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors.

International Journal of Listening, 22, 103-122.

Bostrom, R. N. (1990). Conceptual approaches to listening behavior. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.),

Listening behavior: Measurement and application (pp. 1-14). New York: Guilford.

Bostrom, R. N. (2011). Rethinking conceptual approaches to the study of "listening".

International Journal of Listening, 25, 10-26.

Bostrom, R. N., & Waldhart, E. S. (1983). The Kentucky Comprehension Listening Test.

Lexington, KY: The Kentucky Listening Research Center.

Bostrom, R. N., & Waldhart, E. S. (1988). Memory models and the measurement of listening.

Communication Education, 37, 1-13.

Brown, J. I., & Carlsen, G. R. (1955). Brown-Carlsen Listening Comprehension Test New York:

Harcourt, Brace and World.

Brownell, J. (2010). The skills of listening-centered communication. In A. D. Wolvin (Ed.),

Listening and human communication in the 21st century (pp. 141-157). Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Burleson, B. R. (2007). What's most important about communication? About communication and

social support. Communication Currents, 2.

Burleson, B. R. (2011). A constructivist approach to listening. International Journal of Listening,

25, 27-46.

Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T. L., Goldsmith, D., & Sarason, I. G. (1994). Introduction: The

communication of social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht & I. G. Sarason

 LISTENING 22

(Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and

community (pp. xi-xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B. R., & Bodie, G. D. (2008). Constructivism and interpersonal processes. In W.

Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 3, pp. 950-954).

Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Burleson, B. R., & Caplan, S. E. (1998). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly,

M. Martin & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives.

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1995). The socialization of person-centered

communication: Parental contributions to the social-cognitive and communication skills

of their children. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family

interactions (pp. 34-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B. R., & Rack, J. J. (2008). Constructivism: Explaining individual differences in

communication skill. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in

interpersonal communication (pp. 51-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Caffrey, J. G. (1955). Auding. Review of Educational Research, 25, 121-138.

Castleberry, S. B., & Shepherd, C. D. (1993). Effective interpersonal listening and personal

selling. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13, 35-49.

Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative

competence. Communication Education, 30, 109-121.

Coker, D. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1987). The nature of conversational involvement and nonverbal

encoding patterns. Human Communication Research, 13, 463-494.

 LISTENING 23

Cooper, L., & Husband, R. L. (1993). Developing a model of organizational listening

competency. Journal of the International Listening Association, 7, 6-34.

Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Daughton, S. M. (1988). The nature and correlates of

conversational sensitivity. Human Communication Research, 14, 167-202.

de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. G. M. (2000). The impact of perceived listening behavior in voice-

to-voice service encounteres. Journal of Service Research, 2, 276-284.

Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational

communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49-65.

Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and validation of the

active empathetic listening scale. Psychology and Marketing, 23, 161-180.

Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful parenting:

Implications for parent-child relationships and prevention research. Clinical Child &

Family Psychology Review, 12, 255-270.

Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (2009). Perspective taking, adaptation, and coordination. In W. F. Eadie

(Ed.), 21st century communication (pp. 119-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Fassaert, T., van Dulmen, S., Schellevis, F., & Bensing, J. (2007). Active listening in medical

consultations: Development of the Active Listening Observation Scale. Patient Education

and Counseling, 68, 258-264.

Fitch-Hauser, M. (1984). Message structure, inference making, and recall. In R. N. Bostrom

(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 378-392). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

 LISTENING 24

Fitch-Hauser, M., & Hughes, M. A. (1988). Defining the cognitive process of listening: A dream

or reality? Journal of the International Listening Association, 2, 75-88.

Floyd, K. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Oxford:

Cambridge University Press.

Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1998). The measurement of affectionate communication.

Communication Quarterly, 46, 144-162.

Gearhart, C. G., & Bodie, G. D. (2011, April). Active-empathic listening as a general social skill.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern States Communication

Association, Little Rock, AR.

Gordon, T. (1975). P.E.T.: Parent effectiveness training. New York: New American Library.

Goss, B. (1982). Listening as information processing. Communication Quarterly, 30, 304-307.

Graen, G. B. (1989). Unwritten rules for your career. New York: Wiley.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 206-212.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (T. A. McCarthy, Trans. Vol. 1).

Boston: Beacon Press.

Halone, K. K., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2001). Relational listening: A grounded theoretical model.

Communication Reports, 14, 59-71.

Imhof, M. (2001). How to listening more efficiently: Self-monitoring strategies in listening.

International Journal of Listening, 15, 2-19.

Imhof, M. (2010). The cognitive psychology of listening. In A. D. Wolvin (Ed.), Listening and

human communication in the 21st century (pp. 97-126). Boston: Blackwell.

 LISTENING 25

International Listening Association (ILA) (1995). An ILA definition of listening. Listening Post,

53(April), 1, 4-5.

Jalongo, M. R. (2010). Listening in early childhood: An interdisciplinary review of the literature.

International Journal of Listening, 24, 1-18.

Janusik, L. (2005). Conversational Listening Span: A proposed measure of conversational

listening. International Journal of Listening, 19, 12-28.

Janusik, L. (2010). Listening pedagogy: Where do we go from here? In A. D. Wolvin (Ed.),

Listening and human communication in the 21st century (pp. 193-223). Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Jones, S. M. (2011). Supportive listening. International Journal of Listening, 25, 85-103.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco,

CA: Chandler Publications.

Kelly, C. M. (1965). An investigation of the construct validity of two commercially published

listening tests Speech Monographs, 32, 139-143.

Kelly, C. M. (1967). Listening: Complex of activities - and a unitary skill? Speech Monographs,

34, 455-465.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations

Review, 28, 21-37.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Understanding family communication patterns and

family functioning: The role of conversation orientation and conformity orientation.

Communication Yearbook, 26, 37-68.

 LISTENING 26

Ledbetter, A. M., & Schrodt, P. (2008). Family communication patterns and cognitive

processing: Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of informational

reception apprehension. Communication Studies, 59, 388-401.

Lipari, L. (2010). Listening, thinking, being. Communication Theory, 20, 348-362.

Lundsteen, S. W. (1966). Teaching and testing critical listening: An experiment. Elementary

School Journal, 66, 311-315.

Mechanic, D., & Meyer, S. (2000). Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Social

Science & Medicine, 54, 657-668.

Mishima, N., Kubota, S., & Nagata, S. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to assess the

attitude of active listening. Journal of Occupational Health, 42, 111-118.

Myers, S. (2000). Empathic listening: Reports on the experience of being heard. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 40, 148-173.

Neuliep, J. W., & Hazleton, V., Jr. . (1986). Enhanced conversational recall and reduced

conversational interference as a function of cognitive complexity. Human

Communication Research, 13, 211-224.

Nichols, R. (1948). Factors in listening comprehension. Speech Monographs, 15, 154-163.

Notarius, C. I., & Herrick, L. R. (1988). Listener response strategies to a distrressed other.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 97-108.

Pasupathi, M., Carstensen, L. L., Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Responsive

listening in long-married couples: A psycholinguistic perspective. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 23, 173-193.

 LISTENING 27

Pasupathi, M., Stallworth, L. M., & Murdoch, K. (1998). How what we tell becomes what we

know: Listener effects on speakers' long-term memory for events. Discourse Processes,

26, 1-25.

Pecchioni, L. L., & Halone, K. K. (2000). Relational listening II: Form & variation across social

and personal relationships. International Journal of Listening, 14, 69-93.

Pendell, S. D. (2002). Affection in interpersonal relationships: Not just "a fond or tender

feeling". Communication Yearbook, 26, 70-115.

Powers, W. G., & Witt, P. L. (2008). Expanding the theoretical framework of communication

fidelity. Communication Quarterly, 56, 247-267.

Prager, K. J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Intimacy and need fulfillment in couple relationships.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 435-469.

Reis, H. T. (1990). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relations. Journal of Social & Clinical

Psychology, 9, 15-30.

Rhodes, S. C. (1993). Listening: A relational process. In A. D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.),

Perspectives on listening (pp. 217-240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rhodes, S. C., Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. L. (1990). Listening assessment: Trends and

influencing factors in the 1980s. Journal of the International Listening Association, 4,

62-82.

Ridge, A. (1993). A perspective on listening skills. In A. D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.),

Perspectives on listening (pp. 1-14). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Roberts, C. V. (1988). The validation of listening tests: Cutting the Gordian knot. Journal of the

International Listening Association, 2, 1-19.

 LISTENING 28

Roberts, C. V., & Vinson, L. (1998). Relationship among Willingness To Listen, Receiver

Apprehension, Communication Apprehension, Communication Competence, and

Dogmatism. International Journal of Listening, 12, 40-56.

Schrodt, P. (2008). The missing link: Listening processes as explanatory mechanisms for the

intergenerational transmission of family communication patterns. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the National Communication Association.

Schrodt, P., Wheeless, L. R., & Ptacek, K. M. (2000). Informational reception apprehension,

educational motivation, and achievement. Communication Quarterly, 48, 60-73.

Service, E. T. (1957). Sequential tests of educational progress. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service.

Stacks, D. W., & Murphy, M. A. (1993). Conversational sensitivity: Further validation and

extension. Communication Reports, 6, 18-24.

Steil, L. K., & Bommelje, R. K. (2004). Listening leaders: The then golden rules to listen, lead,

and succeed. Edina, MN: Beaver's Pond Press.

Sypher, B. D., Bostrom, R. N., & Seibert, J. H. (1989). Listening, communication abilities, and

success at work. Journal of Business Communication, 26, 293-303.

Villaume, W. A., Brown, M. H., & Darling, R. (1994). Presbycusis, communication, and older

adults. In M. L. Hummert, J. M. Wiemann & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Interpersonal

communication in older adulthood: Interdisciplinary theory and research (pp. 83-106).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Watanuki, S., Tracy, M. F., & Lindquist, R. (2006). Therapeutic listening. In M. Snyder & R.

Lindquist (Eds.), Complentary/Alternative therapies in nursing (4th ed., pp. 45-56). New

York: Springer.
 LISTENING 29

Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. L. (1984). Listening behavior: Definition and measurement.

Communication Yearbook, 8, 178-197.

Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., Roberts, C. V., & Roberts, J. D. (2001). Watson Barker Listening

Test: Video version/Facilitator’s guide. Sautee, GA: SPECTRA.

Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., & Weaver, J. B. (1995). The listening styles profile (LSP-16):

Development and validation of an instrument to assess four listening styles. International

Journal of Listening, 9, 1-13.

Weaver, C. (1972). Human listening: Process and behavior. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Weaver, J. B., III, & Kirtley, M. D. (1995). Listening styles and empathy. Southern Journal of

Speech Communication, 60, 131-140.

Weger, H., Jr., Castle, G. R., & Emmett, M. C. (2010). Active listening in peer interviews: The

influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. International Journal

of Listening, 24, 34-49.

Wilson, S. R., & Sabee, C. M. (2003). Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical

term. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social

interaction skills (pp. 3-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Worthington, D. L. (2008). Exploring the relationship between listening style and need for

cognition. International Journal of Listening, 22, 46-58.

Zebrowitz, L. A. (2001). Groping for the elephant of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F.

J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 333-350).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

 LISTENING 30

Table 1

Definitions of Listening within Various Theories of Human Communication

Theory Definition of Listening

Affection Exchange a type of affectionate communication that fosters intimate interactions by

Theory enhancing feelings of being understood (Floyd, 2006)

Communication the ability to accurately receive and interpret another’s sensory output

Fidelity Theory (Powers & Witt, 2008)

Constructivism “the process of interpreting the communicative behavior of others in the

effort to understand the meaning and implications of that behavior”

(Burleson, 2011, p. 29)

Dialogic Theory of one among many skills needed to foster dialogue which “involves

Public Relations creating a climate in which others are not only encouraged to participate

but their participation is facilitated” (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 27)

Family Communication one of the fundamental theoretical mechanisms facilitating the

Patterns coorientation process that family members undergo (Schrodt, 2008)

Implicit Personality one among many cognitive categories used to evaluate others during and

Theory after interaction (Bodie, St. Cyr, et al., in press)

Interpersonal a complex behavior that helps signal involvement or “the degree to

Adaptation Theory which participants are enmeshed in the topic, interpersonal relationship,

and situation” (Coker & Burgoon, 1987, p. 463)

(Table continues)
 LISTENING 31

Table 1 (continued)

Definitions of Listening within Various Theories of Human Communication

Theory Definition of Listening

Leader-Member sensitivity and openness to the particular issues raised by each member

Exchange Theory of one’s work team which leads to positive relationships, mutual trust,

and increased job satisfaction (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)

Planning Theory of understanding of others’ actions and discourse (Berger, 2008)

Communication

Relational Framing the process of making sense of relational messages within social

Theory interaction (Dillard, Solomon, & Palmer, 1999)

Theory of one half of coordinated action that involves the conscious selection of,

Communicative Action attending to, and reflecting on interaction to reach a common

understanding without the necessity for a cleansing of political (or other)

interests (Habermas, 1984)

 LISTENING 32

Notes

1
This is a summary of a story which aired on NPR in Baton Rouge, LA on November 16,

2009. The quotes were drawn from the transcript available here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120463986.
2
Although not frequently cited, Kelly also reported the partial correlation between the

listening tests after removing variance shared with the test of mental ability (Otis). That

correlation, r = .33, suggests that BCLT and STEP, as measures of listening ability, were tapping

something not assessed by the Otis. Whether that something was “aural-processing ability” was

never addressed primarily because scholars seemed to focus on the strong correlation between

each test and the Otis test.

3
Of course, the activity and empathy discussed from this view is not necessarily linked to

the active listening paradigm discussed above; instead, activity refers to general involvement in a

conversation, whereas empathy refers to an overall focus on the other person and his or her

perspective. Even within contexts such as psychotherapy and healthcare where training in active

listening is an accepted practice, there is little agreement as to the specific skill set that

constitutes active listening. Though many would agree that paraphrasing and backchannel

responses, for instance, should be included, agreement about other actions such as non-directive

reflecting is less clear (Armstrong, 1998).

4
Empirical evidence has also linked cognitive complexity to other cognitive listening

skills including comprehension (Beatty & Payne, 1984; Sypher, et al., 1989), memory for

conversations (Neuliep & Hazleton, 1986; Stacks & Murphy, 1993), and the ability to

systematically process messages (Bodie et al., 2011; Bodie et al., in press).