Behavioral Communication

Overview

Within the field of interpersonal communication, individuals behave in ways that communicate personalities, attitudes, and reactions to specific situations both verbally and nonverbally. Communication experts have identified specific styles of behavioral communication that help to explain these behaviors and judge their effectiveness in dealing with others. With some variations, the most commonly accepted behavioral communication styles are assertive, aggressive, passive (also known as passive/submissive), and passive/aggressive. Others add manipulative as a fifth style. Some scholars have suggested that behavioral communication styles may be predicted according to the Big Five personality traits—openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—focusing on assertiveness and responsiveness as keys to maintaining both professional and personal relationships.

Communication experts find that behavioral communication styles are influenced by the need to obtain affection, to take control, to escape negative situations, to become insiders, to obtain pleasure, to enjoy camaraderie, and to relax. Communication styles may be employed in response to when and where communication occurs, with whom individuals are communicating, and the level of success previously experienced with specific styles of communication. Females are generally considered more likely than males to be passive because of socialization and cultural constraints. This is particularly true in countries where patriarchy is especially strong. Assertive females may be disliked by others, particularly by males, who consider such behavior unfeminine. Bhabani Kanta Pattnaik and Soumya Mishra have identified five objectives of communication that influence behavioral communication styles in the business world: promoting cooperation; encouraging teamwork; communicating clearly stated goals, rights, and responsibilities; nurturing company pride and loyalty; and effectively dealing with problems as they arise. A survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers revealed that having effective communication skills ranks as one of the top determinants of whether or not an individual is hired.

Most communication experts agree that the most effective communicators are the assertive communicators because they are willing to clearly express opinions and ideas while respecting those of others. The assertive communicator will also stand up for others when necessary. The assertive communicator speaks in a calm voice, has a relaxed attitude, maintains eye contact, is willing to listen to others, and always has emotions under control. In global business dealings, The assertive communicator is willing to compromise when necessary and is generally not vulnerable to manipulation by other kinds of communicators. Americans are often identified as assertive communicators because submissiveness is not part of the national culture, and they are not afraid to say no to protect personal and national interests.

Often described as “self-control freaks,” aggressive communicators have a strong sense of self and are so sure of themselves that the feelings of others may be disregarded. With a dominating personality, this communicator may speak in a loud voice and may appear intimidating, threatening, impulsive, rude, and demanding. In direct conversations, aggressive communicators may refuse to allow others to contribute, convinced that expressing their own opinions is more important than listening to others. Aggressive communicators may be so widely disliked that others avoid their company whenever possible.

Passive or passive/submissive communicators often refuse to exhibit their feelings or to stand up for themselves, even when there is justification. This communicator is more likely to quietly accept whatever happens, allowing anger and resentment to build up over time until an explosion occurs. A passive communicator often speaks softly, hesitantly, and apologetically and may refuse to maintain eye contact with others for an extended period. Adoption of a victim mentality is common among these communicators, as is a fixed smile. Confrontations may be so upsetting to this type of communicator that they become anxious and depressed. Others may respond to passive communicators with frustration because they fail to express opinions.

The passive/aggressive communicator has much in common with the passive communicator, but this communicator generally harbors a deep-rooted anger that may result in feelings of powerless in the presence of more forceful communicators. The passive/aggressive communicator is an expert at not showing emotions through nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions and body language. The passive/aggressive communicator may become manipulative, playing others against one another to achieve particular goals rather than bringing ideas up for discussion. Passive/aggressive communicators may take out unexpressed resentments on workers who answer to them or on family members or in chance encounters outside the workplace, such as a with a store clerk or fellow customer.

The manipulative communicator is often described as cunning and controlling. Requests are likely to be made indirectly rather than directly. These communicators encourage others to feel obligated to them, and they expect any favors to be repaid. The manipulative communicator tends to be patronizing and ingratiating and may speak in a high-pitched voice. Typical reactions to the manipulative communicator are guilt, frustration, anger, and resentment.

Applications

In 1978, Patricia Jakubowski and Arthur J. Lange identified three main styles of communication: passive/submissive, aggressive, and assertive. They argued that adoption of these styles may be either conscious or unconscious, contending that communication styles may develop in response to particular situations. For instance, an individual may become passive/submissive in order to keep a position, to get along with a difficult boss, or to show the respect due to individuals in supervisory positions. Jakubowski and Lange contend that communication styles may also be the result of learned behaviors designed to make interpersonal communication more effective.

In a 2015 study of behavioral communication styles, Dumitru Filipeanu and Mihaela Cannanāu used Jabukowski and Lange’s communication styles to analyze questionnaires sent to 500 male and 500 female office workers in Romania to identify on-the-job behavioral communication styles, discovering that 58 percent were aggressive, 36 percent were assertive, and only 6 percent were passive/submissive. The study revealed that both gender and level of education influenced communication styles. Because of cultural socialization, females were more likely than males to tolerate all types of communication styles, and they were less likely than males to be aggressive. Employees with both higher (78 percent) and lower (69 percent) levels of education were more likely than others to be assertive and to prefer the assertive style in others. Among those with the equivalent of a high school education, 41 percent were assertive, 21 percent were aggressive, and 38 percent were passive/submissive. Younger employees were more likely to be assertive: 78 percent among those aged 18 to 29 and 61 percent among those 30 to 39. Those over age 50 were more likely to be aggressive: 53 percent in the 50 to 59 age group and 68 percent among those over 60. Of all age groups, those in the 40 to 49 age group exhibited the most balanced mixture of communication styles: 40 percent were assertive, 32 percent were aggressive, and 28 percent were passive/submissive. As might be expected, executives tended to fall into the assertive (41 percent) and aggressive (38 percent) styles.

Even children have been shown to react to styles of communication. In a 1978 study, June Murantz Connor, Lisa A. Serbin, and Regina A. Ender examined the responses of fourth, sixth, and eighth graders after reading stories about characters who behaved aggressively, assertively, or passively. Overall, students were happier reading about females who behaved passively because such behavior was expected of them. However, passive males were viewed negatively, and that negative reaction became more pronounced among older students. Students acknowledged that males were more aggressive than females since they observed male classmates being both physically and verbally aggressive on a daily basis. It should be noted that children in elementary schools in 1978 had been socialized into accepting well-defined gender roles, and this study might produce different results in the twenty-first century. However, the study is useful for considering communication styles from a historical perspective.

Communication teachers have developed innovative ways of teaching their students about behavioral communications styles and helping them to understand the styles of communication with which they are most comfortable. As part of the GIFTS series, Amy Trombley developed a method for teaching students to apply assertive, nonassertive, and aggressive styles and to distinguish them from one another through role-playing, class observations, and discussions. One of the lessons Trombley wanted to teach her students was that certain situations might demand particular communication styles. For instance, when the actions of an assertive communicator are met with stress, anger, and frustration, an effective communicator might change tactics and employ passive communication as a situational tactic. Trombley suggests dividing students into seven groups and providing them with mandatory profiles of employees. Alternately, she suggests randomly choosing seven students to role play, with other students reacting to and discussing what transpires. In both cases, the students are instructed to make a case for selecting a particular employee as employee of the year who will be honored by receiving significant rewards.

Discourse

A number of scholars have determined that specific personality traits are useful in predicting the ways that individuals engage in interpersonal communication in various aspects of their lives. These traits are openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Ceri M. Sims suggests that the so-called Big Five list has become the “golden standard” for explaining how individuals actually communicate, reporting that a Google Scholar search for the term results in more than two million links. The groundwork for the Big Five was laid in the 1930s and 1940s when scholars were asked to identify English trait words. They identified 4,500 trait words that were later capsuled into what became known as the Big Five personality traits. Communication experts have used those traits to predict individual tendencies toward assertiveness and responsiveness, which have been identified as the most effective characteristics of competent communicators.

As with the traditional communication style typology, assertive communicators are defined as those who are self-confident, convinced of the validity of their opinions, and willing to speak up and stand up for themselves and others. They also respect the right of others to be heard. Assertiveness is deemed to be positively correlated with extroversion and negatively correlated with introversion. Twin studies have indicated that extroversion is higher among monozygotic twins than among dizygotic twins. Thus, whether one is an extrovert or an introvert is determined to some extent by genetics. Sims describes extroverts as sociable, fun-loving, talkative, happy, and successful at communicating with others. Nevertheless, according to Sims, assertiveness is only a low-level trait of extroversion.

In the sense of communication styles, neuroticism is associated with being self-conscious and having low levels of assertiveness. In 2006, Tanya Drollinger, Lucette Comer, and Patricia Warrington developed the concept of using active, empathetic listening to sell products, suggesting that listeners experience a three-step process of sensing, processing, and responding to information. Therefore, they argue that effective interpersonal communication involves deliberate and focused participation in interactions with others and being able to put oneself in the other person’s place as interactions take place. Agreeableness is associated with being helpful, modest, and compassionate, and openness is linked to the complexity of individual thought processes. Individuals who are open are assumed to be bright, verbally fluent, expressive, and funny. A conscientiousness individual tends to be organized, dependable, achievement-oriented, and have high self-efficacy.

In 1995, Carolyn M. Anderson and Matthew M. Martin studied four groups in order to identify their assertiveness and responsiveness and understand the motives of particular communicators in behaving according to a specific style. Aggressive communicators were considered domineering, competitive, and instrumentally competent. Responsive communicators were identified as empathetic, friendly, gentle, and expressively competent. Alternately, an androgynous type was classified as a composite of the assertive and responsive types of communicators. Anderson and Martin contended that particular communication styles may be employed in order to win affection, to persuade others, or to gain inclusion in a group. They determined that the most effective communicators were those who were both highly assertive and responsive. Noncompetent communicators, on the other hand, exhibited low levels of assertiveness and responsiveness. Noncompetent communicators included both submissive communicators with low assertiveness and high responsiveness and aggressive communicators with high assertiveness and low responsiveness. Anderson and Martin found that aggressive communication was often motivated by the need to escape a situation.

In 1988, Stella Ting-Toomey, a speech professor at California State University, Fullerton, introduced the face-negotiation theory of conflict that suggested that conflict communication styles were culturally determined. Her work paved the way for a number of studies in which researchers have examined the extent to which the Asian tendency to engage in face-saving impacts on-the-job communication styles. In a 2004 Australian study, for instance, Frances P. Brew and David R. Cairns examined 163 Anglo and 133 Chinese college students who were employed either full- or part-time. Students were classified as either direct and self-oriented or cautious and other-oriented, and conflict management styles were identified as controlling, situation-oriented, and nonconfrontational. They found that Anglo college students exhibited higher levels of assertiveness and lower levels of nonconfrontational behaviors than Chinese college students. However, whenever they felt their self-face was being threatened, both the Anglo and Chinese students opted for direct communication. Self-face was associated with assertiveness and diplomacy in Anglo students and with passivity and the solution-oriented management style in Chinese students.

These findings reflect those of other scholars who have found that North Americans and Western Europeans are more likely than others to be individualistic and to focus on their own needs. North Americans, which means Americans and Canadians in this context, tend to be adversarial and less concerned about creating animosity than communicators from other countries. American communicators value achievement and are often competitive. British citizens working in areas like China and Hong Kong have been shown to be both competitive and collaborative. Australian communicators have been categorized as individualistic, honest, and transparent.

Terms & Concepts

Dizygotic/Monozygotic Twins: The terms refer to fraternal and identical twins, respectively. Dizygotic twins are fertilized from two different eggs, and monozygotic twins from the same egg. Twin studies are instrumental in helping researchers to understand the impact of genetics on the development of a range of behaviors, including communication styles.

Extroversion/Introversion: Typically, extroversion refers to those who are other-oriented, and introversion to those who are self-oriented. In communication styles, a number of researchers have found that extroverts tend to be competent communicators because they are more willing than introverts to express their opinions freely. However, an introvert may be more competent in written communication than an extrovert because introverts are more experienced at thinking things through before they make statements.

Neuroticism: In a general sense, neuroticism is associated with anxiety and fear, as with hypochondriacs who are always complaining of being sick even when there is no evidence of illness. Within the context of the Big Five personality types, neuroticism refers to the range of emotional stability.

Patriarchy: The term refers to social systems in which males hold economic, political, and social power and dominate in decision-making positions. Historically, patriarchy has produced such social practices as primogeniture, in which only the oldest male in a family may inherit property so that it remains in the hands of the main bloodline, and coverture, which dictated that married women were legally covered by their husbands and were unable to become guardians of their own children, own property, hold bank accounts, or to appear as witness in court. While such laws have been overturned in most countries of the world, vestiges of patriarchy remain, and socialization has often been used to limit women’s roles in behavioral communication as well as other fields.

Self-efficacy: The term refers to the belief that one has the ability to positively affect situations. A person with high self-efficacy is more likely to be an assertive or aggressive communicator, while individuals with low self-efficacy are more likely to be passive out of the conviction that their opinions are worthless and that nothing they do will make a difference. Self-efficacy is significantly correlated with conscientiousness in the Big Five personality typology.

Self-face: The term refers to the need of humans to appear worthwhile to themselves and to others in specific situations. Losing face may result in embarrassment and in reduced self-confidence and lowered self-esteem. While the term is considered cultural to some extent and is particularly integrated into Asian society, it is accepted that self-face is a human rather than an ethnic trait since all individuals strive to appear at their best to themselves and others. Scholars have studied the concepts of self-face along with those of other-face and mutual-face to better understand intercultural communication.

Bibliography

Anderson, Carolyn. M., and Matthew M. Martin. "Communication Motives of Assertive and Responsive Communicators." Communication Research Reports, vol. 12, no. 2, 1995, pp. 186–191. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/08824099509362055. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.

Brew, Frances P., and David R. Cairns. "Styles of Managing Interpersonal Workplace Conflict in Relation to Status and Face Concern: A Study with Anglos and Chinese." International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 15, no. 1, 2004, pp. 27–56. American Psychological Association, doi:10.1108/eb022906. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.

Connor, Jane Marantz, et al. "Responses of Boys and Girls to Aggressive, Assertive, and Passive Behaviors of Male and Female Characters." Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol. 133, no. 1, 1978, pp. 59–70, doi:10.1080/00221325.1978.10533357. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.

Drollinger, Tanya, et al. "Development and Validation of the Active Empathetic Listening Scale." Psychology and Marketing, 17 Dec. 2005, doi:10.1002/mar.20105. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.

Filipeanu, Dumitru, and Mihaela Cannanāu. "Assertive Communication and Efficient Management in the Office." International Journal of Communication, vol. 5, no. 3, 2015, pp. 237–243. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=aabb623f-6e3c-38c1-895e-5e68bd054d97. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.

Jakubowski, P., and Lange, A. J. The Assertive Option: Your Rights and Responsibilities. Research Press, 1978.

Pattnaik, Bhabani Kanta, and Souyma Mishra. "Communication Style of Managers: A Comparative Study on Public and Private Sector." Social Science International, vol. 30, no. 1, 2014, pp. 177–187.

Sims, Ceri M. “Do the Big-Five Personality Traits Predict Empathic Listening and Assertive Communication?” International Journal of Listening, vol. 31, no. 3, Sept. 2017, pp. 163–88. EBSCOhost, doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1202770. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.

Ting-Toomey, S. "Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-Negotiation Theory." Theories in Intercultural Communication, edited by Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst. SAGE Publications, 1988, pp. 213–235.

Trombley, Amy. “The Affect of Conflict on Communication Style: A Classroom Activity.” Conference Papers National Communication Association, Nov. 2007, p. 1. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=0edd72ad-1298-36c5-ad55-264fd7671bcf. Accessed 25 Aug. 2023.

"Understanding Your Communication Style." Princeton University, umatter.princeton.edu/respect/tools/communication-styles. Accessed 27 Sept. 2024.