See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257076105

The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): A Six-Dimensional Behavioral

Model of Communication Styles and Its Relation With Personality

Article  in  Communication Research · August 2013

DOI: 10.1177/0093650211413571

CITATIONS READS

81 25,776

4 authors, including:

Reinout E. de Vries Angelique Bakker-Pieper

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam University of Amsterdam
164 PUBLICATIONS   7,054 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   492 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Barbara Schouten
University of Amsterdam
68 PUBLICATIONS   1,649 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Game based personality assessment View project

Contextualized Personality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reinout E. de Vries on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E. & Schouten, B. (2013). The
Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of
communication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research, 40(4), 506-
532.
DOI: 10.1177/0093650211413571

Reinout E. de Vries†
VU University Amsterdam

Angelique Bakker-Pieper
VU University Amsterdam

Femke Konings
University of Amsterdam
Barbara Schouten
University of Amsterdam

†
Contact address:
VU University Amsterdam
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology
Van der Boechorststraat 1
1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5988718
e-mail: [email protected]

Acknowledgement: This research was partly funded by a 2009 grant of the NITPB to the first
two authors. 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. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reinout E. de Vries,
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, e-mail:
[email protected].
 The Communication Styles Inventory 2

The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI):

A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality

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 non-behavioral

intrapersonal cognitions and feelings vis-à-vis communication. Additionally, personality, as

operationalized using the HEXACO-PI-R and 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 Communication Styles Inventory 3

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 non-personal information, knowledge, ideas, opinions, and

feelings play a role. Communication styles not only play 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 (Daly & Bippus, 1998; Beatty, 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 non-

behavioral 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 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 et al., 2009, p. 179). This
 The Communication Styles Inventory 4

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 s/he wants the conversational partner to react (i.e., submissive - (b)). The

definition specificly 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). Additionally, 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 (Daly & Bippus, 1998;

Beatty, 1998; McCroskey, Daly, Martin, & Beatty, 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 5

signals’ (De Vries 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 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 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 soft-hearted 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 et al. (2009) was that the three

non-behavioral 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 6

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 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 (versus 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

 The Communication Styles Inventory 7

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 et al.

(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.

 The Communication Styles Inventory 8

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 non-interpersonal trait which 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 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.

Additionally, 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 9

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 non-work related criteria, such as unethical decision

making, lower study grades, counterproductive behaviors, and sexual intimidation (Ashton &

Lee, 2008; De Vries, De Vries, & Born, in press; Lee, Ashton, & De Vries, 2005; Lee,

Gizzarone, & Ashton, 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 et al., 2009) and

deception and impression management studies (Burgoon et al., 1996; Goffman, 1959), these
 The Communication Styles Inventory 10

six communication style dimensions are believed to provide an integrative framework

covering the main communication styles. That is, according to this framework, 1) there are no

substantial other behavioral communication style dimensions that are unrelated to the six CSI

dimensions proposed in this study, and 2) non-behavioral 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 and Wigley, 1986; Infante and Rancer, 1982)

and personality are tested in a community sample. Additionally, a student sample is used to

provide a cross-validation to find out whether the findings with respect to personality held 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 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 11

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 HEXACO Honesty-Humility. In the student sample, we also included

the 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 two weeks apart, and the second three waves, which were also spaced two 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 which 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 which are not relevant for this study. The
 The Communication Styles Inventory 12

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 tertiairy 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 second 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 (seven months earlier) filled out the HEXACO-

PI-R (N=61) and NEO-PI-R (N=42) as part of a first year psychology course. Questionnaires

were matched based on student numbers.

Instruments

CSI. The CSI consists of 96 communication behavior items which 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 13

(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.

Lexical marker scales. The thirty 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 (p. 190-191) of De Vries 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.

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

et al., 2009). Comparable to the reliabilities in the lexical study of De Vries et al. (2009),
 The Communication Styles Inventory 14

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 backtranslated 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 (seven

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 spill-over 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 15

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.

Table 1

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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 16

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.

Table 2

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

Construct validity of the CSI

The lexical marker scales (De Vries 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. Additionally, 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 17

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 which

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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 18

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 p’s<.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. Expressiveness correlated most strongly with both HEXACO
 The Communication Styles Inventory 19

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 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

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 & 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 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 20

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 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 21

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 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 which 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, & Lee,

2009). Interestingly, in contrast with Honesty-Humility, which shows strong gender

differences (almost 1 standard deviation higher Honesty-Humility among women, see De

 The Communication Styles Inventory 22

Vries, Ashton, & Lee, 2009), Impression Manipulativeness shows almost no gender

differences. Although the non-verbal 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 23

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 (in press) 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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 24

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, 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

Communication 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. Additionally,

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, counselling, law, and medicine, and practical advantages in assessment

situations in which (verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal) communication is the main behavior

being exhibited.

Footnotes
1
The CSS was not known by this name in Gudykunst et al. (1996); CSS is the name

provided by Leung and Bond (2001).

 The Communication Styles Inventory 25

2
Leung & Bond (2001) also lamented the lack of integrative model linking

personality and communication styles, noting on p. 69: “Unfortunately, there is no integrative

model to link the two (Daly & Bippus, 1998), and almost no data available outside the West.”

Even in the West, data linking these two is sparse.

3
In-depth information about the different preliminary studies conducted can be

obtained from the first two authors.

4
Although the student sample was somewhat small and somewhat gender inbalanced,

please note that the CSI-HEXACO correlations in the (large) community sample, which

contained almost equal men to women, were highly similar to the CSI-HEXACO correlations

in the student sample. To test whether these correlations were similar, we first conducted a

profile correlation between the r-to-z transformed CSI-HEXACO correlations in the

community sample and the r-to-z transformed CSI-HEXACO correlations in the student

sample. This correlation was highly significant (r=.89, p<.001). Additionally, we checked

whether any convergent correlations in the community sample were significantly different

from those in the student sample using a Fisher’s test of difference between independent

correlations. None of the convergent correlations were significantly different from each other

at p<.01. Please note as well that even the smaller NEO-PI-R sample had enough power to

detect significant correlations (at p<.05) of .30 and higher.

5
Note that, in contrast, none of the correlations of the CSI facets with CSS Positive

Perception of Silence, Use of Feelings, and Inferring Meaning, surpassed the .40 level.

References

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (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.
 The Communication Styles Inventory 26

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & De

Raad, B. (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, A. & De Vries, R. E. (2011). The incremental validity of communication styles

over personality traits for leader outcomes. Poster presented at the 15th EAWOP

Conference, May 25-28, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Beatty, M. J. (1998). Future directions in communication trait theory and research. In J.C.

McCroskey, J.A. Daly, M.M. Martin, & M.J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and

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

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

J., Hanasono, L., & Mincy, J. (2011). Explaining the Impact of Attachment Style on

Evaluations of Supportive Messages: A Dual-Process Framework. Communication

Research, 38, 228–247.

Buller, M. K. & Buller, D. B. (1987). Physicians’ communication style and patient

satisfaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 375-388.

Buller, D. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication

Theory, 6, 203-242.

Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Floyd, K., & Grandpre, J. (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.

 The Communication Styles Inventory 27

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.

Daly, J. A. & Bippus, A. M. (1998). Personality and interpersonal communication: Issues and

directions. In J.C. McCroskey, J.A. Daly, M.M. Martin, & M.J. Beatty (Eds.),

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

Press Inc..

Eysenck, S. G. B., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985) A revised version of the psychoticism
scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29.
De Vries, A., De Vries, R. E., & Born, M. Ph. (in press). Broad versus narrow traits:
Conscientiousness and Honesty-Humility as predictors of academic criteria. European
Journal of Personality.
De Vries, R. E., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (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.

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Alting Siberg, R., Van Gameren, K. & Vlug, M. (2009).

The content and dimensionality of communication styles. Communication Research,

36, 178-206.

De Vries, R.E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (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.

De Vries, R.E., De Vries, A., 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.
 The Communication Styles Inventory 28

De Vries, R.E. & Van Kampen, D. (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.

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.

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

Feist, J. & Feist, G. J. (2006). Theories of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frank, M. G. & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception

situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 486-495.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:

Anchor/Doubleday.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.

(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and

individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication

Research, 22, 510-543.

Hargie, O. & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory,

and practice. London & New York: Routledge.

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.

Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (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: Swets & Zeitlinger.

 The Communication Styles Inventory 29

Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality

and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Infante, D. A. & Wigley, C. J., III. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model

and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

Infante, D.A. & Rancer, A.S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A

review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook

19 (pp. 319-351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, S. D. & Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between listening

effectiveness and leadership emergence: Perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small

Group Research, 29, 452-471.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality

Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.

Lee, K., & 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.

Lee, K., 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.

Lee, K., Gizzarone, M., & Ashton, M. C. (2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually

harass. Sex Roles, 49, 59-69.

Leung, S. K. & Bond, M. H. (2001). Interpersonal communication and personality: Self and

other perspectives. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 69-86.

 The Communication Styles Inventory 30

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.

Levine, T. R., Shaw, A., & 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.

McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Martin, M. M., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication and

personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc..

Noller, P. & White, A. (1990). The validity of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire.

Psychological Assessment, 2, 478-482.

Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication

Research, 4, 99-112.

Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator Style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Notarantonio, E. M. & Cohen, J. L. (1990). The effects of open and dominant communication

styles on perceptions of the sales interaction. The Journal of Business Communication,

27, 171-184.

Oh, I. S., Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., De Vries, R.E. (in press). Are dishonest extraverts more

harmful than dishonest introverts? The interaction effects of honesty-humility and

extraversion in predicting workplace deviance. Applied Psychology: An International

Review.

Ritchie, L. D. & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns - Measuring

intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17,

523-544.

Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., Graham, E. F., Perse, E. M., & Seibold, D. R. (2009).

Communication research measures II: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.

 The Communication Styles Inventory 31

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.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Vrij, A. & Mann, S. (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.

Weaver, J. B. (2005). Mapping the links between personality and communicator style.

Individual Differences Research, 3, 59-70.

 The Communication Styles Inventory 32

Appendix: Items of the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI)

# R† 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.
 The Communication Styles Inventory 33

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.
 The Communication Styles Inventory 34

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.
 The Communication Styles Inventory 35

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.
†
Notes: # = questionnaire number; R = Recoded item (1=5, 2=4, 4=2, 5=1)
 The Communication Styles Inventory 36

Table 1
Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): Descriptives and Gender Differences
Women Men
Total (N=430) (N=385)
d(Women-
alpha M SD M SD M SD 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)† .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
% of Variance
† Cronbach reliability and descriptives are calculated using three facets only (Ingratiation,
Charm, & Concealingness)
 The Communication Styles Inventory 37

Table 2
Principal Component Analysis on the facets of the CSI (N=815)
X P VA Q E IM h²
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
 The Communication Styles Inventory 38

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
Notes: p<.01 at r>.08 in the community sample and at r>.24 in the student
sample
 The Communication Styles Inventory 39

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*
Notes: N's=744, 815, and 716 for correlations with Lexical Marker Scales, Gudykunst et
al.’s (1996) Communication Style Scale (CSS), and Infante & colleagues’ scales (Infante
& Wigley, 1986; Infante & Rancer, 1982) respectively; * p<.05; ** p<.01.
X=Expressiveness, P=Preciseness, VA=Verbal Aggressiveness, Q=Questioningness,
E=Emotionality, and IM=Impression Manipulativeness
 The Communication Styles Inventory 40

Table 5
Correlations of the CSI with the HEXACO and NEO personality inventories
Verbal Impression
Expressivenes Aggressivenes Questioningnes Manipulativenes
s Preciseness s s Emotionality s
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
Notes: C=community sample (N=805); S=student sample (N=61 for HEXACO-PI-R and N=42 for NEO-PI-R); * p<.05; ** p<.01

View publication stats