1

Communication Styles
Reinout E. de Vries
VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Communication styles refer to the characteristic way in which a person sends verbal
and nonverbal signals during social interactions. Among the Greeks and Romans,
“style” was an important element of rhetoric, the art of creating persuasive messages
and arguments, but communication style in current parlance is much more strongly
linked to somebody’s habitual and highly personal way of communicating instead of
the (verbal and nonverbal) style elements used to convey a particular message. In
­rhetoric, style is juxtaposed to content, but in communication style research the two are
often intertwined. Style informs content but the content also provides information on
a person’s communication style. Current research on communication styles is ­interested
in delineating the main communication style dimensions and in determining the
­antecedents and effects of communication styles.

Models and dimensions

Although the scientific study of communication styles only took hold in the 1970s,
models and measures of similar constructs were developed from the 1950s onwards.
Probably the most influential model is the interpersonal circumplex model (Leary,
1957), which arranges eight interpersonal interaction styles along two dimensions:
Affiliation (Love versus Hate) and Control (Dominance versus Submission). Most com-
munication style models contain constructs that are similar to the two dimensions of the
interpersonal circumplex. For instance, two of the most well‐known older c­ommunication
styles measures, Norton’s (1978) communicator style construct (CSC) and Burgoon
and Hale’s (1987) relational communication scale (RCS), referred to the interpersonal
circumplex as one of the key communication models when c­onceptualizing their
measurement instruments. Norton (1978) distinguished nine communicator styles:
Dominant, Dramatic, Contentious, Animated, Impression Leaving, Relaxed, Attentive,
Open, and Friendly. Burgoon and Hale (1987) distinguished eight relational communi-
cation “themes”: Immediacy/Affection, Similarity/Depth, Receptivity/Trust, Composure,
Formality, Dominance, Equality, and Task Orientation. Separate studies revealed two
dimensions in both the CSC and the RCS, respectively called Friendliness and Dominance
(CSC) and Affiliation and Dominance (RCS), showing that the interpersonal circum-
plex dimensions seemed to underlie these two instruments to a great extent.

The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, First Edition.

Edited by Charles R. Berger and Michael E. Roloff.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic0033
2

The next step in the conceptualization of communication styles came about in the
1990s with a publication by Gudykunst et al. (1996). Like Norton and Burgoon and
Hale before them, Gudykunst et al. (1996) synthesized the existing literature and culled
96 items from five existing communication style instruments and added 62 items based
on conceptualizations of low‐ and high‐context communication. Based on a factor
analysis, they retained 80 items loading on eight factors: Inferring Meaning, Indirect
Communication, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Dramatic Communication, Use of Feelings,
Openness, Preciseness, and Positive Perception of Silence, which together formed the
communication style scale (CSS). The CSS contained a number of positive properties
that the CSC and RCS lacked, that is, reliable and independent scales covering a
­purportedly broader swath of communication styles.
At about the same time, the scientific literature witnessed an explosion of i­nstruments,
measuring communication styles in a diverse array of situations, such as in dating
c­ouples, parent–child interaction, doctor–patient communication, sales talks, police
interrogation, job interviews, leadership, and conflict management. Despite the pro-
gression in the conceptualization and operationalization of communication styles, in
the late 1990s scholars started to lament the lack of integration of the different commu-
nication style models and conceptualizations. To integrate the field, de Vries, Bakker‐
Pieper, Alting Siberg, van Gameren, and Vlug (2009) undertook a lexical study to
investigate the structure of verbs and adjectives that refer to “the way people commu-
nicate.” Based on the o­utcomes of this study, the communication styles inventory (CSI)
was constructed (de Vries, Bakker‐Pieper, Konings, & Schouten, 2013), which mea-
sures communication styles using six dimensions, each containing four underlying
facets:

• Expressiveness: Talkativeness, Conversational Dominance, Humor, and Informality;

• Preciseness: Structuredness, Thoughtfulness, Substantiveness, and Conciseness;
• Verbal Aggressiveness: Angriness, Authoritarianism, Derogatoriness, and Non-
supportiveness;
• Questioningness: Unconventionality, Philosophicalness, Inquisitiveness, and
Argumentativeness;
• Emotionality: Sentimentality, Worrisomeness, Tension, and Defensiveness; and
• Impression Manipulativeness: Ingratiation, Charm, Inscrutableness, and
Concealingness.

The CSI showed expected relationships with the lexical dimensions, the CSS, and scales
measuring verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1996).

Three aspect systems

Communication styles convey three aspects about a person: his/her identity, his/her
interaction with others, and the impact of his/her messages. Consider the following
statement from Norton’s (1978) CSC: “Very often I insist that other people document
or present some kind of proof for what they are arguing.” Agreeing to this statement
 3

may tell us something about the identity that the respondent is trying to convey
(t­horough), the preferred interaction (dominant), and the intended impact of the
m­essage (insisting).
The identity aspect system refers to the personality traits, social identity, and
i­mpression management tactics that a person conveys through his or her communica-
tive acts. Considered from a personality psychologist’s perspective, communication
styles are an expression of personality. In line with this perspective, the HEXACO
p­ersonality dimensions (i.e., Honesty‐Humility, Emotionality, eXtroversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to experience) have been found
to have moderate to strong relations with the CSI communication styles (de Vries
et al., 2013). Considered from a social identity or impression management perspec-
tive, s­ ituational or group attributes determine the way one communicates.
Identification with a desirable in‐group will result in conformity to norms associ-
ated with the group, including norms with respect to the way one communicates
with in‐group members, strangers, or members of an out‐group. Impression
management theorists share with social identity theorists the idea that context
determines the way one communicates, but they focus mostly on situations in
which consciously formed impressions are instrumental in achieving certain goals
or f­ulfilling certain competence or intimacy needs, such as at work and during
dating. Impression management theorists focus p­redominantly on social desirable
communication or appearing attractive to the c­ ommunication partner (e.g.,
Impression Manipulativeness), whereas social identity theorists not only focus on
ingratiating communication that decreases distinctiveness from in‐group members,
but also on pejorative or derogative communication that increases distinctiveness
from out‐group members (e.g., Verbal Aggressiveness).
The interaction aspect system refers to the action–reaction patterns that are
characteristic of a person’s communication style. The two perspectives that stipu-
late the action–reaction mechanisms in social interactions are the interpersonal
circumplex and the mimicry (or chameleon effect) perspectives. According to the
inter­personal circumplex perspective, social interactions will be characterized by
correspondence on the affiliation dimension and reciprocity on the control
dimension. Correspondence on affiliation is in line with the mimicry perspective.
This perspective maintains that people are likely to nonconsciously imitate a
­communication partner in order to build rapport. Especially high self‐monitors
and people high on empathy seem to be more likely to mimic others than low self‐
monitors and people low on empathy. Mimicry has also been found to be grounded
in cultural relational styles and to be more prevalent in threatening than in non‐
threatening situations.
The impact aspect system refers to the communication channels that are used
­during social interactions, e.g., nonverbal (e.g., body position, eye‐gazing, head
­tilting, s­miling/frowning, etc.), paraverbal (volume, fluency, tone modulation, use of
pause, etc.), and verbal (structure and content of speech). Research in this area has
focused most often on deceptive communication, but also on for instance ­parent’s
evaluative c­ommunication, affective communication, and communication of polite-
ness. The core assumption of this approach is that channels that tend to be less
4

c­ ontrollable, such as nonverbal and paraverbal channels, tend to “leak” true thoughts
and feelings. Although a communication style may be ascertained from either of the
channels alone, the combination of these channels provides the observer a chance to
modify or strengthen the perception based on information from other channels.
That is why observers prefer to rely on “rich” media in deception detection, why
managers prefer face‐to‐face c­ommunication, even when other, but less rich, media
(e.g., telephone, voice mail, e‐mail, letter) are available, and why customers who
have face‐to‐face contact with a service provider remain more loyal.

Applications

It is unsurprising that communication styles have been popular in different areas of

research, such as in parent–child, doctor–patient, conflict, and leadership research.
Communication styles play an important role in situations requiring Explaining,
Exploring, Socializing, Supporting, Influencing, and/or Negotiating (e.g., Hargie &
Dickson, 2004). Communication situations are defined by whether the communi-
cator (the sender) is in a dyadic or group situation, and whether the communicator’s
hierarchical position is lower, equal, or higher than his/her communication partner
(the receiver). For instance, an individual may have to explain something in a higher
p­osition (e.g., as a teacher), equal position (among friends), or lower position (as a
s­ubordinate) in a dyad (e.g., an individual oral test) or group (e.g., group meeting)
situation. Depending on the communication situation, number of communicators,
and position(s), each of the communication styles is likely to have a stronger or
weaker impact on communication effectiveness and satisfaction. Preciseness is for
instance likely to have a strong impact in Explaining situations but maybe a less
strong impact in Supporting or Socializing situations. Preciseness and Expressiveness
are likely to be important in Influencing situations; both have for instance been
found to have strong relations with perceived leader effectiveness and satisfaction.

Future research

Recent developments in communication style research have paved the way for exciting
new research opportunities. Whereas research has made much headway in uncovering
the main dimensions of communication styles, much research still needs to be done in
uncovering the main antecedents of communication styles and their effects. For
i­nstance, are communication styles determined by genes or p­ersonality and hence
relatively stable, or can they be learned? How do communication competence and skills
relate to communication styles? Do skills learned through training have a lasting
influence on communication styles or not? How exactly do the different communica-
tion situations, described above, influence the use of communication styles? And what
is the relation between personal interests, communication content, and communica-
tion styles? Practitioners are likely to have a strong interest in the influence of commu-
nication styles on outcomes. Although research has already provided ample evidence
 5

that communication styles are important, much research still needs to be done on the
effects of communication styles in different occupations, in partner and family inter­
actions, and in media and politics, to name just a few potential areas of research. Given
the p­otential impact of communication styles in these and related areas, the field of
c­ommunication styles is likely to blossom.

SEE ALSO: Affinity Seeking/Ingratiation Strategies; Doctor–Patient Communi­

cation; Interpersonal Communication Skill/Competence; Parent–Child Commu­
nication; Power and Dominance in Nonverbal Communication; Verbal Aggressiveness

References

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of
relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19–41. doi: 0.1080/03637758
709390214
de Vries, R. E., Bakker‐Pieper, A., Alting Siberg, R., et al. (2009). The content and dimensionality
of communication styles. Communication Research, 36, 178–206. doi: 10.1177/00936
50208330250
de Vries, R. E., Bakker‐Pieper, A., Konings, F., & Schouten, B. (2013). The communication
styles inventory (CSI): A six‐dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its
relation with personality. Communication Research, 40, 506–532. doi: 10.1177/00936
50211413571
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting Toomey, S., et al. (1996). The influence of cultural
individualism‐collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles
across c­ultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐2958.1996.
tb00377.x
Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory, and
practice. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for
personality evaluation. Oxford, UK: Ronald Press.
Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication
Research, 4, 99–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐2958.1978.tb00600.x

Further reading

McCroskey, J. C., & Daly, J. A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., Martin, M. M., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication and person-
ality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994). Communication research measures: A source-
book. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6

Reinout E. de Vries is associate professor in social and organizational psychology at

the VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and professor of human resources
development at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. His research interests
include communication styles, personality, and leadership. He is general editor of
Gedrag & Organisatie (Behavior & Organization), a Dutch ISI‐ranked journal.