De Vries Ea 2013 CR Communication Styles Inventory

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), 506532.
DOI: 10.1177/0093650211413571
Reinout E. de Vries
VU University Amsterdam
Angelique Bakker-Pieper
Femke Konings
University of Amsterdam
Barbara Schouten
University of Amsterdam
Contact address:
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology
Van der Boechorststraat 1
1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5988718
e-mail: re.de.vries@psy.vu.nl
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:
re.de.vries@psy.vu.nl.
The Communication Styles Inventory
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--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 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 somebodys
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 nonbehavioral conceptualizations of communication styles. Furthermore, we explore whether trait
and communication style models can be integrated by investigating the relations of the CSI
scales with the main personality dimensions.
The main communication styles dimensions
As a basis for the CSI, we use the definition of De Vries 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
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 ones own or other peoples 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 Nortons Communicator Style Measure (CSM; Norton,
1978, 1983), Burgoon and Hales (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
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 ones 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
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 persons behavior (Feist & Feist, 2006, p.
4). Considered from a trait psychologists perspective and in agreement with the
communication style definition, a communication style is an expression of a persons
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
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 Barrets (1985) Psychoticism (which is a combination of low
Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness), while Extraversion and reversed Neuroticism
were positively related to Affinity-Seeking communication. In a similar vein, Weaver (2005)
found evidence of a negative association between Psychoticism and a Responsive
communication style, positive relations between Extraversion and Straightforward and
Talkative communication styles and a positive relation between Neuroticism and an
Acquiescent communication style. Although these studies offer some evidence to link
personality to communication styles, at the moment the evidence is still sparse.
On face value, the seven lexical communication dimensions described earlier also
appear to be related to the main personality dimensions. Most clearly, Expressiveness seems
to refer to the (non- and para-)verbal manifestation of extraversion. Although
conscientiousness is generally regarded as a non-interpersonal trait which refers to
somebodys 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
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
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
11
communication instead of to interpersonal communication styles. Last of all, we expected

high positive correlations between CSI Verbal Aggressiveness and Infante and Wigleys
(1986) Verbal Aggressiveness and between CSI Questioningness and Infante and Rancers
(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 domainlevel 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
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 Wigleys (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness scale
and Infante and Rancers (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 HEXACOPI-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
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 Wigleys (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness
scale and Infante and Rancers (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),
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
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 domainlevel 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
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 Wigleys (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness, and Wigley and Rancers (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 Wigleys (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness and
CSI Questioningness to show a convergent correlation with Infante and Rancers (1982)
Argumentativeness.
Table 4
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
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 ps<.01).
Infante and Wigleys (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness showed strong convergent
correlations with CSI Verbal Aggressiveness (r=.62, p<.01). Infante and Rancers (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 Rancers (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 ones 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
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 & Wigleys (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness, and
Infante and Rancers (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
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 Wigleys
(1986) Verbal Aggressiveness. Infante and Rancers (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
Rancers (1982) conceptualization that people high on Argumentativeness are able to
advocate positions on controversial issues and to attack verbally the positions which other
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, someones communication style may be viewed as an
expression of ones 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 domainlevel 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
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, BakkerPieper, 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 somebodys 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
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 Rancers (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
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).

2
25
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 Fishers 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.
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, 228247.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Appendix: Items of the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI)
# R Facet
Expressiveness
1
Talkativeness
25
Talkativeness
49 R Talkativeness
73
Talkativeness
7
Conversational Dominance
31 R Conversational Dominance
55
79
13
Humor
37 R Humor
61
Humor
85
Humor
19 R Informality
43 R Informality
67
Informality
91 R Informality
Preciseness
2
Structuredness
26 R Structuredness
50
Structuredness
74
Structuredness
8
Thoughtfulness
32
Thoughtfulness
56 R Thoughtfulness
80
Thoughtfulness
14
Substantiveness
38
Substantiveness
Item
I always have a lot to say.
I have a hard time keeping myself silent when around other people.
I am never the one who breaks a silence by starting to talk.
I like to talk a lot.
I often take the lead in a conversation.
Most of the time, other people determine what the discussion is about, not me.
I often determine which topics are talked about during a conversation.
I often determine the direction of a conversation.
Because of my humor, I'm often the centre of attention among a group of people.
I have a hard time being humorous in a group.
My jokes always draw a lot of attention.
I often manage to make others burst out laughing.
I communicate with others in a distant manner.
I behave somewhat formally when I meet someone.
I address others in a very casual way.
I come across as somewhat stiff when dealing with people.
When I tell a story, the different parts are always clearly related to each other.
I sometimes find it hard to tell a story in an organized way.
I always express a clear chain of thoughts when I argue a point.
My stories always contain a logical structure.
I think carefully before I say something.
I weigh my answers carefully.
The statements I make are not always well thought out.
I choose my words with care.
Conversations with me always involve some important topic.
You won't hear me jabbering about superficial or shallow matters.
32

62 R Substantiveness
86
Substantiveness
20
Conciseness
44
Conciseness
68 R Conciseness
92
Conciseness
Verbal Aggressiveness
3
Angriness
27 R Angriness
51
Angriness
75
Angriness
9 R Authoritarianism
33
Authoritarianism
57
Authoritarianism
81
Authoritarianism
15 R Derogatoriness
39
Derogatoriness
63
Derogatoriness
87
Derogatoriness
21 R Nonsupportiveness
Questioningness
4
Unconventionality
28
Unconventionality
52
Unconventionality
76
Unconventionality
10 R Philosophicalness
34
Philosophicalness
58 R Philosophicalness
82
Philosophicalness
I am someone who can often talk about trivial things.

I rarely if ever just chatter away about something.
I don't need a lot of words to get my message across.
Most of the time, I only need a few words to explain something.
I am somewhat long-winded when I need to explain something.
With a few words I can usually clarify my point to everybody.
If something displeases me, I sometimes explode with anger.
Even when I'm angry, I won't take it out on someone else.
I tend to snap at people when I get annoyed.
I can sometimes react somewhat irritably to people.
I am not very likely to tell someone what they should do.
I sometimes insist that others do what I say.
I expect people to obey when I ask them to do something.
When I feel others should do something for me, I ask for it in a demanding tone of voice.
I never make fun of anyone in a way that might hurt their feelings.
I have at times made people look like fools.
I have been known to be able to laugh at people in their face.
I have humiliated someone in front of a crowd.
I can listen well.
I always show a lot of understanding for other people's problems.
I always take time for someone if they want to talk to me.
I always treat people with a lot of respect.
I sometimes toss bizarre ideas into a group discussion.
I often say unexpected things.
In discussions, I often put forward unusual points of view.
In conversations, I often toy with some very wild ideas.
I never enter into discussions about the future of the human race.
I like to talk with others about the deeper aspects of our existence.
I never engage in so-called philosophical conversations.
I regularly have discussions with people about the meaning of life.
33

16
Inquisitiveness
40 R Inquisitiveness
64
Inquisitiveness
88
Inquisitiveness
22
Argumentativeness
46
Argumentativeness
70
Argumentativeness
94
Argumentativeness
Emotionality
5
Sentimentality
29 R Sentimentality
53
Sentimentality
77
Sentimentality
11
Worrisomeness
35
Worrisomeness
59
Worrisomeness
83
Worrisomeness
17
Tension
41
Tension
65 R Tension
89
Tension
23
Defensiveness
47 R Defensiveness
71
Defensiveness
95
Defensiveness
Impression Manipulativeness
6
Ingratiation
30
Ingratiation
54
Ingratiation
78
Ingratiation
12
Charm
36
Charm
34
During a conversation, I always try to find out about the background of somebody's opinion.
I don't bother asking a lot of questions just to find out why people feel the way they do about something.
I ask a lot of questions to uncover someone's motives.
I always ask how people arrive at their conclusions.
To stimulate discussion, I sometimes express a view different from that of my conversation partner.
I like to provoke others by making bold statements.
I try to find out what people think about a topic by getting them to debate with me about it.
By making controversial statements, I often force people to express a clear opinion.
When I see others cry, I have difficulty holding back my tears.
During a conversation, I am not easily overcome by emotions.
When describing my memories, I sometimes get visibly emotional.
People can tell that I am emotionally touched by some topics of conversation.
When I'm worried about something, I find it hard to talk about anything else.
I tend to talk about my concerns a lot.
People can tell when I feel anxious.
When I worry, everybody notices.
Because of stress, I am sometimes unable to express myself properly.
I can be visibly tense during a conversation.
I am able to address a large group of people very calmly.
I find it hard to talk in a relaxed manner when what I have to say is valued highly.
The comments of others have a noticeable effect on me.
Nasty remarks from other people do not bother me too much.
When people criticize me, I am visibly hurt.
I am not always able to cope easily with critical remarks.
I sometimes praise somebody at great length, without being really genuine, in order to make them like me.
In discussions I sometimes express an opinion I do not support in order to make a good impression.
Sometimes I use flattery to get someone in a favorable mood.
To be considered likeable, I sometimes say things my conversation partner likes to hear.
I sometimes use my charm to get something done.
I sometimes flirt a little bit to win somebody over.

60 R Charm
84
Charm
18
Inscrutableness
42
Inscrutableness
I would not use my appearance to make people do things for me.

I sometimes put on a very seductive voice when I want something.
I make sure that people cannot read it from my face when I don't appreciate them.
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)
35
36
Table 1
Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): Descriptives and Gender Differences
Women
Men
Total
(N=430)
(N=385)
d(WomenMen)
-.03
.26**
-.23**
-.28**
.17*
-.32**
-.14*
-.36**
-.20**
-.20**
-.36**
.14*
-.32**
-.48**
-.45**
-.29**
-.38**
.14*
.01
-.57**
.68**
.82**
.36**
.30**
.48**
-.11
-.13
-.06
.07
-.08
alpha
M SD
M SD
M SD
Expressiveness (X)
.88
3.09 .53 3.08 .54 3.09 .53
Talkativeness
.74
2.96 .72 3.04 .72 2.86 .71
.77
2.90 .66 2.83 .68 2.98 .63
Humor
.84
2.98 .75 2.88 .75 3.09 .73
Informality
.78
3.51 .70 3.57 .72 3.45 .68
Preciseness (P)
.86
3.22 .49 3.15 .47 3.30 .49
Structuredness
.80
3.32 .63 3.28 .62 3.37 .64
Thoughtfulness
.80
3.24 .69 3.12 .68 3.37 .69
Substantiveness
.77
3.04 .69 2.98 .67 3.11 .71
Conciseness
.77
3.27 .65 3.21 .64 3.34 .66
Verbal Aggressiveness (VA)
.83
2.55 .48 2.47 .48 2.64 .46
Angriness
.77
3.11 .75 3.16 .75 3.05 .75
Authoritarianism
.70
2.59 .66 2.49 .69 2.70 .61
Derogatoriness
.73
2.45 .73 2.29 .70 2.63 .72
Nonsupportiveness
.72
2.05 .51 1.95 .47 2.17 .52
Questioningness (Q)
.83
3.16 .47 3.09 .48 3.23 .46
Unconventionality
.73
2.88 .68 2.76 .67 3.01 .67
Philosophicalness
.73
3.30 .68 3.35 .67 3.25 .69
Inquisitiveness
.68
3.47 .56 3.48 .54 3.47 .58
Argumentativeness
.80
2.97 .74 2.78 .73 3.19 .69
Emotionality (E)
.84
3.02 .50 3.17 .47 2.85 .47
Sentimentality
.76
3.08 .72 3.33 .67 2.79 .65
Worrisomeness
.74
2.90 .69 3.01 .70 2.77 .66
Tension
.55
2.94 .62 3.03 .63 2.84 .59
Defensiveness
.72
3.16 .65 3.30 .64 3.00 .61
Impression Manipulativeness (IM) .82
2.63 .54 2.61 .57 2.67 .50
Ingratiation
.78
2.42 .71 2.38 .73 2.47 .68
Charm
.75
2.55 .73 2.53 .80 2.57 .64
Inscrutableness
.60
3.28 .58 3.30 .57 3.26 .58
Concealingness
.64
2.93 .61 2.91 .62 2.96 .61
% of Variance
Cronbach reliability and descriptives are calculated using three facets only (Ingratiation,
Charm, & Concealingness)
37
Table 2
Principal Component Analysis on the facets of the CSI (N=815)
X
VA
IM
Expressiveness (X)
Talkativeness
Humor
Informality
.78
.60
.66
.78
-.08
.22
-.10
.08
.15
.29
.13
-.26
.14
.30
.12
.06
.17
-.14
-.15
-.05
-.08
.09
.17
-.18
.68
.61
.53
.73
Preciseness (P)
Structuredness
Thoughtfulness
Substantiveness
Conciseness
.27
-.26
-.35
.07
.75
.63
.62
.70
-.10
-.27
-.08
-.01
.08
.20
.25
-.16
-.16
-.18
.03
-.19
-.12
.08
-.23
-.02
.70
.62
.63
.56

Angriness
Authoritarianism
Derogatoriness
Nonsupportiveness
.04
.11
.08
-.12
-.06
.15
-.16
-.23
.63
.64
.70
.65
-.01
.08
.01
-.22
.34
-.01
-.17
-.15
.04
.32
.26
.04
.52
.55
.62
.56
Questioningness (Q)
Unconventionality
Philosophicalness
Inquisitiveness
Argumentativeness
.25
.07
.18
.23
-.20
-.05
.33
.05
.45
-.09
-.10
.38
.49
.79
.71
.57
-.12
.07
.02
-.22
.17
-.06
-.03
.17
.59
.66
.65
.60
Emotionality (E)
Sentimentality
Worrisomeness
Tension
Defensiveness
.15
.02
-.38
-.20
-.09
-.09
-.33
-.12
-.11
.21
.07
-.06
.00
.03
-.07
-.05
.74
.77
.57
.69
.02
-.03
.18
.17
.58
.64
.62
.57
Impression Manipulativeness (IM)

Ingratiation
Charm
Inscrutableness
Concealingness
-.03
.28
-.05
-.19
-.13
.05
.09
-.11
.13
.25
-.03
.14
-.10
-.03
.22
.11
-.18
-.03
.78
.69
.23
.70
.64
.53
.61
% of Variance
-.65
-.03
.75
11.67 9.77 12.18 8.58 10.15 8.92 61.26

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
Expressiveness (X)
VA
-.22
.05
.21 -.13
.11
-.11
.14 -.19
-.12
.17 -.12
.29
-.22
-.08
Preciseness (P)
-.02
.13
-.29
Questioningness (Q)
.42
.10
.21
Emotionality (E)
-.17
-.33
.08
-.12
Impression Manipulativeness (IM)
.04
-.21
.35
.15
.14
.21
Notes: p<.01 at r>.08 in the community sample and at r>.24 in the student
sample
IM
38
39
Table 4
Correlations of the CSI with lexical communication marker scales, CSS, and Infante and
colleagues scales
X
VA
IM
Expressiveness
.72**
.14**
.09*
.29**
-.35** -.11**
Preciseness
.14**
.61**
-.15**
.23**
-.33** -.14**
Threateningness
.00
-.24**
.51**
.06
Niceness
-.05
.15**
-.59** -.27**
Supportiveness
.20**
.02
-.36**
Reflectiveness
.28**
.04
Emotionality
Lexical Marker Scales
.15**
.28**
.03
-.15**
.11**
.20**
-.05
.01
.50**
.11**
.07
-.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
Verbal Aggressiveness
.13**
-.14**
.62**
.13**
.00
.21**
Argumentativeness
.48**
.22**
.18**
.48**
-.44**
-.08*
Infante & colleagues
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
40
Table 5
Correlations of the CSI with the HEXACO and NEO personality inventories
Verbal
Expressivenes
s
Impression
Aggressivenes
Questioningnes
Preciseness
Manipulativenes
Emotionality
eXtraversion (X)
.67**
.50**
.09*
.03
-.01
-.19
.31**
.11
-.32** -.41**
Conscientiousness (C)
.09*
-.19
.35**
.25
-.19**
.06
.05
-.10
-.15**
Agreeableness (A)
-.03
-.12
.15**
.00
-.56** -.52**
-.11**
-.14
Openness to Experience (O)
.20**
.14
.10**
.22
Emotionality (E)
-.08*
-.02
-.25** -.28*
Honesty-Humility (H)
-.10** -.28*
-.00
-.05
.21
-.13**
-.12
-.18**
-.08
-.17**
-.09
HEXACO-PI-R
.06
.00
.02
-.25*
.53**
.68**
-.11**
.01
.05
.08
-.09*
-.11
-.13**
-.28*
.67**
.74**
.10**
.08
-.16**
-.06
.01
.14
-.51**
-.67**
-.40** -.40**
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

De Vries Ea 2013 CR Communication Styles Inventory

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

De Vries Ea 2013 CR Communication Styles Inventory

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E. & Schouten, B. (2013).

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI):

In this study, a six-dimensional model of communication styles is proposed and

Keywords: Communication Styles, Personality, Interpersonal Communication

The Communication Styles Inventory

The adequate measurement of the main communication styles may be considered

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

communication style, which we named Impression Manipulativeness. Nonverbal and

The Communication Styles Inventory

six communication style dimensions are believed to provide an integrative framework

The Communication Styles Inventory

communication instead of to interpersonal communication styles. Last of all, we expected

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

(completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Cronbach reliabilities of the CSI domain-level

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

Inscrutableness for the remainder of the analyses. Descriptives of Impression

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

provided by Leung and Bond (2001).

The Communication Styles Inventory

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

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

obtained from the first two authors.

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

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

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

I am someone who can often talk about trivial things.

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

I would not use my appearance to make people do things for me.

Notes: # = questionnaire number; R = Recoded item (1=5, 2=4, 4=2, 5=1)

The Communication Styles Inventory

The Communication Styles Inventory

Verbal Aggressiveness (VA)

Impression Manipulativeness (IM)

11.67 9.77 12.18 8.58 10.15 8.92 61.26

The Communication Styles Inventory

Verbal Aggressiveness (VA)

Impression Manipulativeness (IM)

The Communication Styles Inventory

Lexical Marker Scales

CSS (Gudykunst et al.)

Positive Perception of Silence