Discussion post - Communication

Chapter 6 Personality, Temperament, and Communication Traits No two people are exactly alike. There are literally thousands of ways people differ from each other, including such obvious characteristics as height, weight, sex, eye color, nose size, skin color, hand size, hair color, vocal quality, bone structure, and facial features. Most of us are well aware that these individual features are a function of the genetic heritage of each individual. Barring cosmetic surgery and/or severe dietary restrictions, there is little one can do about such features. Of course, not all individual differences are so obvious at first sight.

Each person has a unique personality. An individual’s personality includes a collection of traits, which are characteristic of that individual. It is these characteristics that distinguish one person from another. Among these characteristic traits are predispositions and tendencies toward communication, which collectively permit us to see how one person is unique from another.

Personality and Temperament Over the past eight decades, personality psychologists have identified more than 2,000 different personality traits. This massive research effort has made us very aware of how complex human personalities are. It has also made it obvious that we cannot realistically expect to understand all of these personality traits and how they impact individuals with whom we are in contact on a daily basis.

This research has led investigators to study the association of each of these traits with other traits and attempts to identify which are most important. This

effort has resulted in the identification of what has been called “super traits” or “temperament” variables. These super traits have been found to be associated with many personality variables and have made it possible to understand how groups of personality traits impact human behavior, including communication behavior. The most prominent classification of super traits was advanced by Hans Eysenck (1990). Eysenck labeled his three temperament variables as extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Eysenck and his colleagues also reported research that indicates that these temperament variables are genetically based. Other psychobiologists (people who study psychology from a biological perspective) have suggested that there are five temperament variables. Like Eysenck, Costa and McCrae (1992) also labeled their first two variables extraversion and neuroticism. The remaining three variables (a breakdown of psychoticism) were labeled openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Temperament/Personality and Communication The association of temperament and personality with communication has been specifically noted by psychobiologists. As Eysenck (1986) put it, temperament represents the “ways in which individuals can interact” (p. 14). As Bates (1989), another leading psychobiologist, put it, “there is general agreement [among psychobiologists] that temperament is manifest largely in the context of social interaction” (p. 4). Social interaction, of course, is what we call “communication.”

Communication scholars have long expressed the view that communication and personality are related. Most have suggested that people communicate the way they do because of their personality. Some, however, have argued that if we change people’s communication behavior (generally, through public speaking classes), this will produce changes in their personality as well. Neither view has been established through experimental research, although substantial correlations between personality variables and communication variables have been reported. These correlations confirm the relationship between these variables but do not establish whether personality

causes communication, communication causes personality, or some latent variable causes both.

Most communication research until recently had been based on the assumption that personality and communication traits are learned. However, this research has provided no substantial support for learning as the cause for communication traits. Although it appears that some communication behaviors clearly are learned, such as the language(s) that children speak and the nonverbal communication behaviors that are unique to particular cultures, communication traits of children (and adults) are often very different than those manifested by their parents, whether the children are raised by their birth parents or adopted.

Recent research reported by communibiologists (people who study communication from a biological perspective) indicates that genetic heritability is the most likely causal factor in communication traits, as it is the primary causal factor in temperament and personality (Beatty & McCroskey, 2001) In short, neither personality nor communication traits cause each other; they are both caused by latent variables. These variables are genetically based brain systems. These systems produce communication traits, as well as temperaments, which are manifested in communication behaviors.

The importance of this research for communication in organizations should not be underestimated. While organizations develop their own cultures (as we discuss in a later chapter), certain types of communication will be rewarded or punished within that organizational culture. Many people in organizations will not communicate precisely in the way others in the organization (supervisors, subordinates) would prefer. If we recognize that much of our (and our coworkers’) communication is genetically based, we will better understand why training, or even threatening, does not produce communication conformance. One can change things that are learned, but changing things that are genetic is much more difficult, and often not possible.

Communication Traits

Research on many communication traits has been reported. Most of these traits have some impact on communication in the organizational context. We have chosen to discuss the 10 traits that we believe might have the most significant impact in this context. In this section, seven traits are discussed: willingness to communicate, shyness, communication apprehension, self- perceived communication competence, compulsive communication, argumentativeness/tolerance for disagreement, and verbal aggression. The remaining three traits (assertiveness, responsiveness, and versatility/flexibility) will be discussed in the following section. That section will focus on styles of communication and the communication traits that constitute those styles.

Willingness to Communicate (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). The most basic communication trait is willingness to communicate. The willingness to communicate trait is an individual’s predisposition to initiate communication with others. Although most people will respond at least briefly if someone else tries to initiate interaction with them, there is wide variance in the willingness of individuals to initiate communication with other people. Some people are generally willing to communicate with just about anyone, while others will rarely communicate unless someone else initiates communication with them. Most of us fall in between these extremes.

Being willing to communicate is generally considered to be a very positive characteristic in U.S. culture, as it is in many European, Arabic, and African cultures. However, this is not the case in other cultures, particularly some Asian cultures. Modern U.S. organizations generally view people who are willing to communicate more positively than those who are less willing. In many cases, decisions on hiring, retention, and promotion are heavily influenced by this trait. People who are willing to communicate are seen as better employees because they involve themselves more in tasks involving interpersonal and team interactions.

Employees’ capabilities in the work environment are often only witnessed through their communication with others. Hence, employees less willing to communicate are often seen as less qualified, less motivated, and less cooperative than their more communicative colleagues. Research has indicated that employees who lack willingness to communicate are often less satisfied with their jobs, less motivated in those jobs, and less likely to choose to stay with their organization. Modern organizations virtually demand communication from their employees. Most individuals in positions above the entry level are required to serve as a manager of those in lower-level positions. Management is a communication profession, so to be an effective manager, one must be willing to communicate. Surveys given to managers indicate that over 90 percent of their time at work involves meetings and interactions with subordinates and supervisors.

Shyness (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982) Shyness is the tendency to be timid, reserved, and most specifically, to talk less. Although willingness to communicate is a trait orientation toward communication, shyness refers to the actual behavior of not communicating. Shyness in young children, particularly little girls, is often seen as “cute” in U.S. culture, but is usually seen in a much more negative light in older children and adults. Particularly in the context of new acquaintances and people we don’t know well, shyness is often perceived as a negative reaction to us personally. Others see our shy behavior in a similar light. Hence, in important communication contexts in organizations, such as employment interviews, transitory team meetings, interactions with subordinates, and dealings with clients, shy people are often perceived in a negative way.

However, once people get to know each other well, as is often the case of roommates or supervisors/subordinates, shyness has a much less negative impact (Cole & McCroskey, 2003). In these situations, it appears that receivers do not take the source’s shy behavior personally because they have seen this behavior in the source’s communication with others and are therefore more tolerant of this trait behavior. Unfortunately, in many

positions in organizations, people primarily have contact with people they either do not know at all or do not know well. Shyness is then seen as rejection and tends to generate negative responses.

Communication Apprehension (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979) Communication apprehension is an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons. This communication trait has been the subject of more research than any other. Writings concerning the fear or anxiety associated with communication date back to the ancient Greeks. Some of the earliest quantitative research on communication apprehension was on speech fright or public speaking anxiety. Anxiety about public speaking has been reported by as many as 70 percent of people in the United States in numerous national surveys. Until the 1970s, however, few people realized that many were just as apprehensive, or even more apprehensive, about communication in dyadic or group contexts as in public speaking. It is now estimated that between 15 and 20 percent of the U.S. population has high communication apprehension in communication contexts. More people suffer from the disability produced by communication apprehension than any other disability.

We refer to this communication trait as a disability because of its overwhelmingly negative influence on an individual’s communication behavior and success across communication contexts, including the context of organizational communication. The three most common effects of communication apprehension are communication avoidance (avoiding situations where communication might be expected), communication withdrawal (escaping communication by either psychological or physical means), and communication disruption (communicating in a less competent or noncompetent manner). All generate negative reactions on the part of others and/or fail to accomplish outcomes that can be accomplished by less apprehensive individuals. When communication is required to succeed, high communication apprehensive individuals are most likely to fail.

Communication apprehension is negatively related to willingness to communicate and positively related to shyness. Hence, all of the negative outcomes expected from low willingness to communicate and high shyness can be expected from communication apprehension. Unfortunately, these effects may be even more negative. For example, research has found that people who are perceived as high communication apprehensives are seen in very negative ways, even by people who know them well (unlike shyness). Research relating to organizational communication indicates all of the negative outcomes relating to low willingness to communicate and high shyness are present for high communication apprehensives. Research has been successful in identifying several methods to help people lower their communication apprehension levels. However, the improvement is marginal, only 7–10 percent in most studies. Research indicates that the use of antidepressant drugs may prove to be effective, even though most high communication apprehensives may not suffer from depression.

Self-Perceived Communication Competence (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988) An individual’s report of her/his own competence in communication across a variety of contexts is described as self-perceived communication competence. It is important to understand that this is a measure of self-perception, not a measure of actual communication competence. One may wonder why we should be concerned with such a perception. The reason is simple. Many decisions about communicating, including whether or not to do so, depend on individuals’ self-perception of their competence, and may or may not be impacted by their actual competence. Many incompetent communicators think they are competent, and many competent communicators, as a function of their low self-esteem, think they are not. As with any walk of life, we are more likely to attempt what we think we are good at, and less likely to attempt what we think we are bad at.

Self-reports of communication competence are substantially associated with

self-esteem and communication apprehension. In general, people with low self-esteem see themselves as having little potential to do well or to be adequate in comparison with others around them. People with low self- esteem tend to see themselves as less competent communicators, as do people with high communication apprehension. These traits, of course, are associated with reduced willingness to communicate and increased shyness. This is not to suggest these traits cause one another. Rather, these relationships suggest that they are all influenced by the same genetically- based brain systems.

All of these communication traits are associated with the same temperament variables and self-esteem. Extraversion is positively associated with self- esteem, the willingness to communicate, and self-perceived communication competence, but negatively associated with shyness and communication apprehension. Neuroticism is positively associated with shyness and communication apprehension, but negatively associated with self-esteem, the willingness to communicate, and self-perceived communication competence.

Compulsive Communication (McCroskey & Richmond, 1996) Some people (about 5 percent of the population) are driven to communicate. They look at any contact with other humans as an opportunity for communication. This is more than just a high level of willingness to communicate, it is an overwhelming desire to communicate. These compulsive communicators are often referred to as “talkaholics.” Their need for communication is as strong as an alcoholic’s need for alcohol or a workaholic’s need for work. As would be expected, this communication trait is associated with extraversion. However, it is not associated with neuroticism. Hence, this is not a neurotic need, it is just a strong desire to communicate.

Answer this question: “Do you know anyone who talks too much?” If you answered “Yes,” you are among the vast majority of people to whom we have posed the question. So, compulsive communicators, talkaholics, are the

people who talk too much? Oddly, no. When we contacted people who were identified by others as people “who talk too much,” we actually found that fewer of these people (about 2 percent) were scored on the “talkaholic scale” as compulsive communicators in the general population. This indicates that our description of “talks too much” actually references what people are saying or the way they are saying it, rather than the amount they talk. It represents a “quantitative” description of a “qualitative” problem. The people we give this label to are either saying things we don’t want to hear or communicating so badly that we just wish they would stop. It is the quality of their talk that gives us such a bad impression of them. Most of the people who we say talk too much actually talk no more than the average person. Talkaholics, on the other hand, generally are interesting people who have lots of friends and acquaintances who like to talk with them. Research over the past seven decades has indicated that people who talk more are more positively evaluated on a wide variety of characteristics than people who talk less. These characteristics include leadership ability, competence, liking, honesty, caring for others, task attractiveness, and social attractiveness. Being a compulsive communicator, at least in the general U.S. culture, appears to be a good rather than bad thing. This is confirmed to some extent by research that we did that involved interviews with people identified as talkaholics. These interviews indicated that every individual identified recognized that they were a compulsive communicator, thought that being so was a good thing, and had no interest in signing up for a program to help them be less compulsive in their communication behavior. In contrast, in our work with high-communication apprehensives, two-thirds of them immediately volunteered to participate in a program designed to help them reduce their apprehension.

Argumentativeness and Tolerance for Disagreement (Infante & Rancer, 1982) Since these two communication traits are highly similar, and tolerance for

disagreement is discussed in detail in a later chapter, we will focus here on the argumentativeness trait. An argument includes the statement of a position on an issue and the support for that position, including reasons why alternative positions are incorrect. While some people perceive arguing to be involved with attacking other people and loud verbal exchanges, this is not the kind of communication behavior that we consider here. We see arguing as involving two or more people in an exchange of ideas stating positions and providing support for those positions. If these exchanges begin to involve personal attacks, rather than exchanges of positions and support, the communication has moved into the category of verbal aggression, which is discussed later in this chapter.

There is wide variance among people in terms of their ability to form and present strong arguments to support their views in contrast to those of others. There also is wide variance in their willingness to argue at all. The argumentative communication trait concerns both of these factors. People scoring higher on this trait generally are good at arguing and enjoy doing so. People scoring lower on this trait generally are not good at arguing and do not enjoy doing so. In the give-and-take of communication in organizations, being able to argue one’s views is an important factor in a person’s success or failure. High argumentatives are likely to have more influence in the organization and generally experience less interpersonal conflict in their communication. Low argumentatives, however, are less likely even to introduce their ideas in the organization, much less exhibit skill in supporting them. They also are more likely to misunderstand strong arguments against their ideas, if any are advanced, and perceive them as direct personal attacks (which they are not). This, of course, is highly likely to result in interpersonal conflict with others. Disagreement in organizations is critical to making good decisions and finding better ways to do things. Hence, high argumentatives are likely to be much more valuable employees than those who are low in argumentativeness and prone to initiating verbal aggression toward their colleagues.

Although argumentativeness is a communication trait, it also is associated with two temperament variables. Higher argumentativeness is associated with both higher extraversion and higher psychoticism. Tolerance for disagreement also is associated with higher extraversion and higher

psychoticism. These relationships suggest that both of these traits are likely to be the result of the same brain systems.

Verbal Aggression (Infante & Wigley, 1986) Although argumentativeness and tolerance for disagreement are positive communication traits in organizations, verbal aggressiveness is usually considered to be a negative communication trait. Verbally aggressive communication behavior involves attacking the self-confidence, character, and/or intelligence of another person in addition to, or instead of, their position on an issue. It takes on the character of “You are a bad person” rather than “Your position is a bad idea.” This, of course, personalizes disagreement and is very likely to lead to interpersonal conflict.

People who are low in argumentativeness are more likely to resort to this type of communication because they are less capable of defending their own positions in arguments with others. When their ideas are attacked, they take it as a personal attack and respond with a personal attack on the other communicator. This, of course, is likely to lead to serious conflict between the people involved.

Verbal aggressiveness is associated with the psychoticism temperament variable, but it is not associated with either extraversion or neuroticism. Hence, this type of behavior seems to be the product of only the brain system associated with psychoticism. People higher in psychoticism and verbal aggressiveness traits are likely to use verbal aggression as a strategic weapon against colleagues in the workplace. They may become verbal “bullies” to gain control over others. While this can be a serious problem involving any two people in an organization, it may have its most negative impact when it involves supervisors who are verbally aggressive. Those under such supervisors may perceive that they have no way to deal with such individuals and develop negative attitudes, not only toward that supervisor, but also toward the organization. It is also likely that people working under such supervisors will be lower in their job satisfaction and motivation to work.

Sociocommunicative Orientations and Styles Individuals exhibit trait differences in their basic communication styles, and individual communication traits are related to specific kinds of communication behaviors. In this section, we consider several traits and how they interact to produce unique styles of communication behavior. Sociocommunicative orientations reference the way individuals see their own communication behavior in terms of these traits. Sociocommunicative styles reference the way other people perceive those individuals’ actual communication behavior.

Assertiveness (Richmond & Martin, 1998) When people stand up for themselves and do not let others take advantage of them, without taking advantage of others themselves, they are acting assertively. It is also acting assertively to speak up for one’s self, whether that be making a request or expressing a feeling. Assertive communicators also tend to initiate, maintain, and terminate conversations in accordance with their own communication goals. Assertive communicators’ nonverbal behavior also is important. They tend to talk faster and louder, use more gestures, make more eye contact, and lean forward more in interactions— they are more nonverbally immediate. Do not confuse assertiveness with verbal aggressiveness. Assertive communicators defend themselves and their ideas, but they do not launch personal attacks on others. Verbally aggressive communicators do launch such attacks.

Assertiveness is most highly correlated (positively) with the extraversion temperament variable, but also has a low negative correlation with neuroticism, and a low positive correlation with psychoticism. Assertive communicators seem to be nonneurotic extraverts who may be slightly

psychotic.

Responsiveness (Richmond & Martin, 1998) When people are other-oriented in their communication, they are being responsive. Responsive communicators are sensitive to needs, feelings, and communication of others. They are people whom others see as good listeners. Responsive communicators are more nonverbally immediate than most other communicators and are seen by others as being friendly, compassionate, warm, sincere, and helpful. They are able to be empathic with others, thus focusing on the relational aspect of communication. Do not confuse responsiveness with submissiveness. Submissive communicators yield their rights to others, more often going against their own best interests. While responsive communicators are sensitive to the needs of others, they also pay attention to their own needs and goals. Responsive communicators recognize and consider the other person’s needs and rights, but do this without sacrificing their own legitimate rights.

Responsiveness is correlated (positively) with the extraversion temperament variable. However, it has a stronger (negatively) correlation with psychoticism and has no correlation with neuroticism. Responsive communicators appear to be non-psychotic extraverts.

Versatility or Flexibility The third element of sociocommunicative orientations and styles has been studied under two different labels, versatility and flexibility, but represents essentially the same trait concept. Because all communication takes place in a given context, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify communication behaviors that are appropriate and effective in all situations. The versatility/flexibility trait deals with one’s ability to adapt one’s communication behavior to the context, situation, and other person(s)

involved in a communication event. Other terms that have been used to describe this kind of communicator include adaptable, rhetorically sensitive, and style-flexing. Communicators at the other end of the continuum are described as rigid, dogmatic, uncompromising, and unyielding.

The key elements of versatility/flexibility are knowing when to be assertive and when not to be, when to be responsive and when not to be, when to be both assertive and responsive, and when to be neither. People who can master these elements are able to adapt appropriately to the communication of a wide variety of other people. People with little versatility/flexibility are not able to do this, thus they will often be assertive or responsive when they should not be and not be assertive or responsive when they do need to be.

McCroskey and Richmond (1996) have argued that these three components of sociocommunicative orientations and style are the underlying components of communication competence. They suggest that there is no set of communication skills that make for a competent communicator. Rather, true communication competence is based on having a wide variety of communication styles available for use and the proper orientations for when to use which one.

Four basic styles have been advanced as the core styles. They are all based on levels of both assertiveness and responsiveness. No one style is best; each has its strengths and its limitations. Although almost everyone’s basic style will be one of the following—amiable, analytical, driver, or expressive—the key for communication effectiveness in today’s organizations will be to learn how to employ one of the other styles when needed.

Amiable The amiables are considered relationship specialists and are high on responsiveness and low on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the amiables are as follows: conforming, unsure, pliable, dependent, awkward, supportive, respectful, willing, dependable, and agreeable. Merrill and Reid (1981) suggest that amiables seem “to be most comfortable working in environments where they can provide services and be supportive and helpful

in their relationships with others” (p. 149). We will often find these people in “careers such as teaching, personnel management, social work, psychology, and other helping professions” (p. 149).

Although amiables are likely to be found in professions such as teaching, that is not to say that all, or even most, people in a given profession will be of a single social style. For example, the special education or kindergarten teacher is likely to be an amiable. The college professor heavily involved in laboratory research is more likely to be an analytical. The teacher who becomes principal and has to be “in charge” of running things may be a driver. The drama teacher or cheerleading coach might be an expressive. You can find the various social styles in all walks of life, but some professions are likely to attract higher numbers of certain social styles than others.

Analytical The analyticals are considered technical specialists and are low on responsiveness and low on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the analyticals are as follows: critical, indecisive, stuffy, picky, moralistic, industrious, persistent, serious, exacting, and orderly. Merrill and Reid (1981) suggest that professions such as science, engineering, construction work, accounting, and certain aspects of law often have a high proportion of this style. Again, there could be other styles in these professions. Some research suggests that analyticals are more likely to be apprehensive about communication and, as a result, be more withdrawn and quiet. Thus, analyticals may be less effective communicators than the other styles and more resistant to attempts to interact with them.

Driver The drivers are considered control specialists and are low on responsiveness and high on assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the drivers are as follows: pushy, severe, tough, dominating, harsh, strong-willed, independent, practical, decisive, and efficient. These people might be in careers such as

small-business owners, top management, production managers, administrative personnel, politics, and other decision-making management positions. “Because of their ability to take responsibility and direct others, top management often puts these individuals into positions of control” (pp. 149– 150). Again, there can be drivers in many other professions. The ones listed are only indicators of where drivers are most likely to be found.

Expressive The expressives are considered social specialists; they are high on responsiveness and assertiveness. The adjectives used to describe the expressives are as follows: manipulative, excitable, undisciplined, reacting, ambitious, stimulating, enthusiastic, dramatic, and friendly. “Persons with expressive behavior are often found in sales, entertainment, advertising, art, music, and writing” (p. 150). These people know how to use their communication skills to “gain recognition and attention,” and they like being seen and noticed by others. As suggested earlier, you can find expressives in other fields.

Which style is best? None. There is no best style. They are all different, and they all have positive and negative characteristics. In addition, you can be dominant in one style and have the tendencies of another style. For example, one might be an expressive with some driver tendencies or an analytical with some amiable tendencies. The key is that you need to recognize with whom you are working and adjust your style to be compatible or particularly if you want communication to be successful. Salespersons have known for years that they have to be versatile in order to succeed.

The key to much of this success is being versatile, regardless of your style. “Versatility is the dimension of behavior that indicates the extent to which others see us as adaptable, resourceful, and competent; it is behavior that earns their social endorsement of us because it accommodates their preferences” (p. 44). We need to know when to be assertive, when to be responsive, when to push, when to back off, when to listen to others, and when not to listen. As employees, we have to understand that working with people who have different styles is going to be required of us, and to be

successful, we need to see possible conflict areas and adapt. For example, an amiable individual might perceive the driving style as too pushy, impersonal, and dominating. The analytical might see the expressive as too talkative and outgoing.

Merrill and Reid (1981) suggest that no one style is solely associated with success, but if versatility is present, then success is likely even between two potentially conflicting styles. Managers have known for years that they have to be able to deal with many different types of interpersonal relationships. You need to be prepared to do the same.

Negative Personality Traits The nature of organizations is such that work productivity can be easily hindered by those who choose to do so. Some individuals, for personal reasons, may seek to inhibit group productivity while also engaging in behaviors that result in an unpleasant work environment. Below are descriptions of some of those personalities.

The Saboteur Often work groups find themselves with an unmotivated member, someone whose lack of enthusiasm interferes with the ability of the group to achieve its goal. Such group members become saboteurs, participants who ultimately may undermine the group and its goals. Saboteurs can develop within a group whenever there is a significant difference between group goals and individual goals. Frequently the sabotage is unintentional on the part of the saboteur in that he or she does not deliberately interfere with group goals. Still, a failure on the saboteurs’ part to complete assigned tasks can effectively disrupt group achievements. Even the suspicion of sabotage can undermine group efforts (Thompson & Pearce, 1992). If sabotage is suspected, group members tend to lose sight of the group goal, and all communication becomes focused on the potential sabotage. The group is unlikely to return to productive work until the matter has been resolved, often by either a direct or indirect

ostracizing of the suspected saboteur.

In such cases, the ostracized member will frequently realized what has happened. Further, he or she can frequently explain why, although from an individualized viewpoint. A typical explanation from the ostracized member is, “They probably didn’t think I was contributing enough, because my work schedule kept me from attending a lot of the meetings.” That statement recognizes the reason for the ostracizing (lack of contribution) and the behavioral pattern that spurred the ostracizing (skipping meetings), but provides a benign motive for the behavior (schedule conflicts). Other group members are likely to view this explanation with skepticism. Even if the explanation is correct, many of the other members will assume they have made sacrifices in their schedule to accommodate group activities, and they will expect other members to do the same.

Another form of sabotage, backstabbing, is sabotage that is directed at specific group member instead of toward the group as a whole. Dilenschneider (1997) noted that the best way to counter backstabbing is to have other allies within the group who will tell you what is going on and help you stand up against the saboteur. Once the behavior has been verified, the saboteur should be calmly faced on a one-on-one level to make sure he or she understands the facts at issue and then be given a chance to cease the activity. Sometimes, calmly alerting the person that you are aware of his or her activity will be sufficient to stop it.

Other Personality Influences Some people are more susceptible to anger than others. The two most dominant personality traits with high susceptibility are (1) the volatile personality and (2) the thin-skinned personality.

Volatility The volatile personality tends to have five subcomponents or characteristics:

(1) aggressiveness, (2) a strong moral code, (3) a hair trigger, (4) an inner misery, and (5) a sense of inferiority. Each of these can be viewed as a required element of the volatile personality. If any single one of these is missing, the individual is unlikely to be considered volatile. Any anger episodes that the person might have would likely fall within normal ranges. But, put all five together and you have a potentially lethal mix of personality elements (Powell et al., 2009).

Aggressiveness is the first component. Despite its negative connotations, aggression is not an inherently negative personality trait. Aggression is a highly valued trait in a number of fields, including the business world and sports. But aggressive tendencies can lead to volatile explosions if mixed with the other four elements.

Second on the list is the presence of a strong moral code. This factor surprises some people, because of the image of volatile personalities as people whose tirades can result in death or injury to others. From their perspective, though, such extreme actions are justified by a sense of injustice that has been incurred by them. They typically view themselves as the victims, justifying their explosive behavior on the basis that the person they attacked “made them do it.”

Closely associated with the strong moral code is the presence of a hair trigger. It doesn’t take much to make them angry. A strong moral code makes it easier for them to experience that sense of injustice, because even a minor infraction has the potential of being viewed as unjust.

Adding to the mix of volatility is often some form of inner misery. Its nature may vary, but people with volatile personalities typically had abusive childhoods, came from homes with substance abuse problems, or experienced some form of traumatic experience at a younger age Such negative experiences as a child perhaps contributes to the final component—a sense of inferiority. Everybody feels inadequate at some time or another, but volatile personalities typically feel this way almost constantly. The presence of a triggering event not only threatens them on an issue level, but is perceived as a direct threat on their battered ego. They respond, trying to shield their sense of inferiority with anger.

Thin-Skinned Personalities “Thin-skinned” refers to a difficulty accepting criticism. These people share many of the personality traits of the volatile personality, particularly the sense of inferiority, but their lack of aggressiveness distinguishes them from the above group. Rather than lashing out in response to others, they withdraw with hurt feelings. Generally, thin-skinned people have three characteristics in common. They (1) take themselves too seriously, (2) avoid accepting responsibility, and (3) have no sense of humor. The second element is a barrier to their handling of anger. Dealing with anger requires that a person take responsibility for his or her own behavior, instead of saying everybody else is over reacting.

Both of the angry personalities tend to go through a similar sequence in developing anger, one that also tends to describe the anger reactions of most people. First, there is a trigger, a situation or statement made by another person. That is followed quickly by a thought (“What did I do to deserve that”), an evaluation (“That’s unfair”), and a feeling of hurt or betrayal. Sometimes there is a fantasy about retaliation. Overtly, the volatile personality responds with an explosive reaction—shouting, hitting, or breaking objects. The thin-skinned typically adopts other negative behaviors such as pouting or sulking.

Anger is also an emotion felt by the alienated individual. Alienation is the degree to which an individual believes that his or her behavior can determine the outcomes the person seeks (Price, 1972, p. 42). Individuals experience alienation whenever they cannot provide themselves with desired rewards or are unable to avoid negative sanctions. Such a condition is dependent upon at least four characteristics, three identified by Stokols (1975) and the fourth discussed byS eeman (1959). A state of psychological alienation (1) originates in a social relationship, (2) results from disillusionment with the quality of the relationship, (3) is maintained by spatial or psychological proximity, and (4) is based upon the perceived powerlessness of the individual to restore the situation to its previous positive state.

The first distinctive characteristic of alienation is that it “develops in the

context of an ongoing relationship between an individual and another person or group of people” (Stokols, 1975, p. 27). That element makes long-term groups a prime source of alienated behavior in that the group itself places an individual into a social environment. The second characteristic of alienation is that it involves a process of disillusionment, i.e., “an unexpected deterioration in the quality of outcomes provided by the individual to the other.” In most instances, disillusionment implies the existence of a social relationship which was, at a previous time, satisfactory to the individual and provided them with positive rewards.

The third characteristic of alienation is proximity. Alienation “persists to the extent that the individual and the other(s) remain spatially or psychologically proximal” (Stokols, 1975, p. 27). This proximity serves to constantly remind the individual of their disillusionment. Finally, the fourth distinctive characteristic of alienation is powerlessness, or “the expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes or reinforcements he seeks.” It relates to the perceived capability of an individual to affect his own environment. Powerlessness is important to alienation because it is the key element contributing to frustration. Thus, even though disillusionment creates dissatisfaction, alienation is not experienced until the individual perceives themselves as being unable to correct the situation or to restore the former relationship. If an individual has the power to restore the relationship to its former positive position, the dissatisfaction will be removed and alienation eliminated. If not, frustration will continue and alienation maintained. Anger will be the ultimate outcome.

Alienation can generally be relieved or avoided entirely by ensuring that all group members do not experience a feeling of powerlessness. As long as that element is missing, frustration levels should not be high enough to engender alienation. Again, successful enhancement of the group task will be dependent upon satisfaction of the members’ individual goals.

Further, despite the frequency of such anger responses, most people can learn self restraint if they approach their anger as a problem to be solved. As psychologist Redford Williams (1999) noted, people can be trained to behave differently even if their personality cannot be changed. The general

guidelines for self restraint are to evaluate each type of anger in terms of importance, justification, and intention: Is this situation important to you? Is anger justified in this situation? And is the other person “out to get you”? These simple guidelines result in dramatic results. Even if you don’t use this particular approach, though, self-restraint is expected in modern society. Without it, conflict escalates too far and everyone suffers.

Study Guide 1. Define and distinguish between “personality” and “temperament.”

2. Explain how temperament is related to communication behavior.

3. Explain what causes temperament and communication traits.

4. Define and distinguish between WTC and shyness.

5. Define and distinguish between CA and SPCC.

6. Explain the talkaholic construct.

7. Define and distinguish between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness.

8. Distinguish between SCO and SCS.

9. List the components of SCO/SCS.

10. List the four basic SCO/SCS styles and indicate how they differ from one another.

References and Recommended Readings

1. Bates, J. E. (1989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.). Temperament in childhood. New York: Wiley, 3–26.

2. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The biology of communication: A communibiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

3. Cole, J. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). The association of perceived communication apprehension, shyness, and verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational and interpersonal contexts. Communication Quarterly, 51, 101–110.

4. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: Revised personality inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

5. Dilenschneider, R. L. (1997). The critical 14 years of your professional life. New York: Birch Lane Press.

6. Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Can personality study ever be scientific? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 3–20.

7. Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford, 244–276.

8. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.

9. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggression: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61– 69.

10. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1994). Development of a communication flexibility scale. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 171–178.

11. McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an

approach to measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5, 108–113.

12. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1979). The impact of communication apprehension of individuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 27, 55–61.

13. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions. Central States Speech Journal, 33, 458–468.

14. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.). Personality and interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 129–156.

15. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of human communication: An interpersonal perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

16. Merrill, D. W., & Reid, R. H. (1981). Personal styles and effective performance. Radnor, PA: Chilton Book.

17. Powell, L., Vickers, J., Amsbary, J., & Hickson, M. (2009). Surviving group meetings: Practical tools for working in groups. Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker Press.

18. Richmond, V. P., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Sociocommunicative style and sociocommunicative orientation. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.). Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 133–148.

19. Stokols, D. (1975). Toward a psychology of alienation. Psychological Review, 82, 26–44.

20. Thompson, G., & Pearce, P. F. (1992, May). The team-trust game. Training & Development, 46, 42–43.

21. Williams, R. (1999). Anger kills: Seventeen strategies for controlling the

hostility that can harm your health. New York: Harper Collins.