Nonverbal communication has been noticed for centuries1 and recently has become a major focus of attention for researchers and practitioners in many different fields. Although nonverbal communication has been subjected to intensive scientific study for over twenty-five years,3 lawyers have just begun to realize what others have long known: nonverbal behavior is extremely important in determining the nature of communication and the relationship between the communicators.4

This paper reports the development of a measure of perceived homophily. In both an initial investigation and in a replication, four dimensions of response were observed. These dimensions were labeled attitude, value, appearance, and background. Additional results indicated that opinion leaders are perceived as more homophilous than non-opinion leaders on the dimensions of attitude, value, and background. The scales found to measure these dimensions are suggested for consideration by researchers concerned with homophily or interpersonal similarity in human communication. (Author) liS DEP4171mFkl OF 4E4LTH EDU:.ATiON et AEIFAHE N.11,0NAL ih571TUTE Or DUCT fON TOUARD THE MEASUREMENT OF PERCEIVED HCMOPHILY IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION BEST COPY AVAILABLE James C. McCroskey, Virginia P. Richmond, and John A. Daly Department of Speech Communication James C. McCroskey West Virginia University Virginia P. Richmond John A. Daly

This study examined the degree to which six self-perceived communication traits are related to self-perceived communication competence (SPCC), both individually and collectively. The results indicate communication apprehension and shyness were strongly and inversely related to SPCC, whereas willingness to communicate was strongly and positively associated with SPCC. When examined collectively, several communication traits were found to predict SPCC.

This study explored how responsiveness, assertiveness, cognitive flexibility, and nonverbal immediacy might be related to Machiavellianism and a possible interaction of these relationships with biological sex. Participants (N = 234) completed the AssertivenessResponsiveness Measure (ARM), the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (the self-report version; NISS), the Cognitive Flexibility scale, and a recently developed Machiavellianism scale. The results indicated that for both males and females assertiveness was a positive predictor, and responsiveness was a negative predictor, of Machiavellianism. Cognitive flexibility was a negative predictor for males but not for females. Immediacy was not a significant predictor of Machiavellianism for either males or females. Aaron D. Johnson and James C. McCroskey 59 "Machiavellian" is a term which refers to "a person who manipulates others for his (sic) own purpose" (Moore, Ward, & Katz, 1998). Machiavellianism (the behavior associated with Machiavellians) has long been considered to be synonymous with deception, self-interest, and opportunism (Mudrack & Mason, 1995). Machiavellianism is a personality trait that is used to categorize individuals based on their use of manipulative behaviors (Christie & Geis, 1970; Gable & Dangello, 1994; Martin, Anderson, & Thweatt, 1998; Moore et al., 1998; Mudrack & Mason, 1995; Vleeming, 1979). While this trait often is considered to be negative, in that appears not to include a positive morality component, it also appears to be associated with effective communication behaviors leading to successful efforts at social influence. Those individuals high in Machiavellianism (high Machs) have a tendency to manipulate more, persuade more, and are more willing to compromise truthfulness and ethics than low Machiavellians (low Machs) in order to achieve their goals while communicating with others. They tend to have a "cool detachment" (Vleeming, 1979) or a lack of feelings or affect for others (Christie & Geis, 1970) to a point where they view others as instrumental objects (Mudrack & Mason, 1995). High Machs seem to have an ability to manipulate others to perform some type of action in a manner that these others believe that the idea of the action originated from them (Falbo, 1977). Low Machs seem to be more highly involved with people (Vleeming, 1979), more easily persuaded, and consider ethics more while communicating with others. Some studies have found biological sex differences in Machiavellianism (Barber, 1994; Gable & Topol, 1987; Vleeming, 1979). In general, males have been found to be significantly more Machiavellian than females (Barber, 1994; Vleeming, 1979). This finding appears to be relatively consistent regardless of the Machiavellian instrument employed by the researcher (Vleeming, 1979). However, the results of at least one study contradict the previous findings with regard to biological sex and Machiavellianism. Gable and Topol (1987) found female department store executives to be more Machiavellian than male department store executives. Although the direction of the relationship may not always be consistent, if females and males do indeed differ in their Machiavellian orientation, then their communication with others may also differ as a function of their Machiavellian orientation. Overall, high Mach communicators appear to communicate in different ways than do low Mach communicators. If so, observation of communication behaviors might reveal if one is indeed engaged in an interaction with a high Mach versus a low Mach. However, these revealing communication behaviors of Machiavellians may differ based on the sex of the individual. The purpose of this study was to explore if (and how) Machiavellian orientations are related to some communication orientations, which have been demonstrated to have important associations with a variety of communication outcomes (responsiveness, assertiveness, cognitive flexibility, nonverbal immediacy), and to what extent biological sex may mediate these relationships. Communication Orientations 60 Socio-Communicative Orientation and Style The constructs of socio-communicative orientation and socio-communicative style suggest three trait communication orientations associated related with communication behaviors which form distinct styles of communication behavior. These traits are referred to as responsiveness, assertiveness, and versatility/flexibility. These have been described as the core components of communication competence (McCroskey & Richmond, 1996). Responsiveness. A responsive communicator is one that tends to be other-oriented (Richmond & Martin, 1998). Responsiveness is the first of the three components believed to be critical in socio-communicative orientation (the way an individual perceives her/himself as communicating, their “orientation”) and socio-communicative style (the way others perceived the individual as communicating, their behavior). According to McCroskey and Richmond (1996), being responsive involves considering other’s needs and feelings and being a good listener. A responsive individual is usually described as being helpful, gentle, and friendly. Responsive individuals tend to communicate with others in a manner that displays concern for the relationship of the individuals involved. Anderson and Martin (1995) found responsive communicators to communicate more for needs of affection, inclusion, and pleasure. Within the general U.S. culture, such relational needs are thought to be stereotypically feminine. Many of the descriptors of responsiveness found in the academic literature appear on the femininity dimension of Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1974). One should be cautioned that this inventory attempts to measure one’s gender, or “psychological sex” (which is believed to be heavily influenced by culture), and not one’s biological sex. However, at least one study has explored biological sex differences in responsiveness and found significant results. Martin and Anderson (1996) found females to be significantly more responsive than males. Although there appear to be some biological differences in the need to be responsive, some researchers argue that these differences might more likely be due to cultural socialization than biology (Canary & Hause, 1993). However, research reported by McCroskey, Heisel, and Richmond (2001) found very substantial relationships of both responsiveness and assertiveness with two of Eysenck’s (1990) BIG THREE temperament variables, extraversion and neuroticism. These temperament variables have been established as genetic in origin, and are used by psychobiologists as “marker variables.” Correlations of other variables with these temperament variables suggest they also are most likely to have a genetic origin as well. Be it biology or socialization (or both), there appears to be variation in the need to be responsive to others. Since Machiavellians appear more self-centered than other-centered, we posed our first hypothesis: H1: Responsiveness and Machiavellianism are negatively correlated. Assertiveness. Assertiveness refers to standing up for one’s own rights without infringing on the rights of others (Richmond & Martin, 1998). This is the second component of McCroskey and Richmond's (1996) socio-communicative orientation and style constructs. Based on their interpersonal goals, assertive individuals have the ability to initiate, maintain, or terminate communication with others (McCroskey & Richmond, 1996). Assertive individuals are described as being more confident, dominant, and independent. The assertive communicator is very task or goal oriented in her/his interactions with others. However, the assertive communicator is not one who hinders others' chances at being successful as well. The communicator who employs communication designed to hinder others is considered to be an aggressive person (Richmond & Martin, 1998). Such behavior is referred to as “verbal aggression.” Aaron D. Johnson and James C. McCroskey 61 While sex differences in assertive communication have been documented (Martin & Anderson, 1996), those differences have been found to be small. However, Martin and Anderson (1996) did find males to be significantly more assertive than females. These differences may coincide with some of the sex differences that have been found in Machiavellianism, since for the most part, males have been found to be both more Machiavellian and assertive than females. Consequently, the following hypothesis was forwarded: H2: Assertiveness and Machiavellianism are positively correlated. Cognitive Flexibility. In any given human interaction, one has choices about how to behave and communicate with others. Cognitive flexibility (originally referenced as “versatility” by McCroskey & Richmond, 1996) has been conceptualized as an individual’s awareness, willingness, and self-efficacy in being flexible and adapting to a situation (Martin et al., 1998; Martin & Rubin, 1995; Valencic & Martin, 2002). An individual who is highly cognitively flexible is likely to be aware of multiple communicative responses while engaged in a given interaction. A cognitively flexible individual has a better chance at adapting to others in order to successfully transmit her/his message. Previously, cognitive flexibility has been found to be positively correlated with communication adaptability (Martin & Rubin, 1994). If a cognitively flexible person is more adaptive to others leading to a greater possibility of successful communication, then a cognitively flexible person is probably more successful at accomplishing her/his goals. Successful high Machs are probably aware of multiple responses in many communicative episodes. Therefore, the following hypothesis was forwarded: H3: Cognitive flexibility and Machiavellianism are positively correlated. Nonverbal Immediacy Immediacy is the degree of perceived physical or psychological closeness between people. Perceptions of nonverbal I

While considerable polling and research suggests that religious differences exist between Democrats and Republicans, little research has quantitatively examined such specific hypothesized differences in relation to religious ideology, political affiliation, and communication. Our research (a part of a series of quantitative based investigations into religious-based communication) examines the relationship between political affiliation, biological sex, several measures of religiosity, and four variables previously shown to be associated with communication: (1) tolerance for disagreement, (2) the willingness to communicate, (3) communication apprehension, and (4) receiver apprehension. Results of a MANOVA and confirmatory ANOVAs suggest that numerous statistically significant differences in religiosity and communication do exist between and within the political affiliations.

Dr. Donald William Klopf passed away on August 27, 2010 after a brief illness at his home in Kailua, HI. Wife: Beverly Son: Donn Dr. Klopf and I met at the University of Hawaii in the late summer...

Communication apprehension appears in several forms, most notably oral and written. It is a problem faced by thousands, probably millions, of children and young people in our schools. It may be the most significant “learning disability” to be found in our schools. The classroom consequences are reduced communication on the part of the student with both teacher and peers and a significant reduction in learning as measured by grades assigned in small classes, overall average, and standardized achievement tests.

more probable."3 Evidence from case study analyses,4 research on CA treatment,a and research on social anxiety8 has clearly supported such a reinforcement explanation. No other potentially causal mechanism in the development of CA has received more than limited empirical validation, although potential hereditary influence on CA development has received some attention. After reviewing the literature on infant sociability, social apprehension, and physical attractiveness, Daly concluded that genetic factors may influence the development of CA.7 In extending this possible relationship, Andersen and Singleton found body type (which is primarily genetically determined) to predict CA in women.s While hereditary factors must be considered a possible contributing element in CA development, even ardent proponents of social biology stress the James C. McCroskey is Professor and Chairp~rs~n: Janis .F. AndeT:en is ~ssistant Professor, 3 McCroskey. p. 80. Virginia P. Richmond IS Associate Professor. and 4 Gerald M. Phillips. "Reticence: Pathology Lawrence R. Wheeless is Professor and Assoof the Normal Speaker," Speech Monographs, date Ch3:irp~rson of the Depa~u~ent of. Spe~h 35 (March 1968). 39-49. CommunIcation, West VlrgtnIa UnIversity. IiJames C, McCroskey. "The Implementation Morgantown, WV 26506. of a Large.Scale Program of Systematic Del For a summary of this research. see James sensitization for Communication Apprehension." ~. McCroskey. "Oral Communication ApprehenSpeech Teacher, 21 (Nov. 1972). 255.64. SlOn: A Summary of Recent Theory and Re8 See. for example. John A. Daly, "The Desearch," Human Communication Research, 4 velopment of Social-Communicative Anxiety," (Fall 1977). 78.96. Paper presented at the annual convention of the :!See. for example. William K. Ickes. "A ICA. Berlin. West Germany. 1977; and Daly Classical Conditioning Model for 'Reticence:" and Friedrich. Western Speech. 35 (Winter 1971). 48-55; John 7 Daly. A. Daly and Gustav W. Friedrich. "The De8 Petcr A. Andersen and George W. Singleton. velopment of Communication Apprehension: A '"The Relationship between Body Type and Retrospective Analysis of Some Contributory Communication Avoidance," Paper presented at Correlates,"' Paper presented at the annual SCA the annual convention of the Eastern Communicon\'cntion, ~Iil1ne:J.polis, 1978: and McCroskey. cation Assn., Boston. 1978.

The study of human communication has a long and distinguished history. We can safely say that, since humankind rst acquired the ability to communicate through verbal and nonverbal symbols and norms, people have “studied” communication. Indeed, one advantage we hold over other animals is the ability to communicate abstractions such as time, place, and space as though each was a concrete object. Thus, since the beginning of our time, we have studied human communication-albeit unscienti cally at rst, but through more formal systems as we came to better understand both the role of communication in society and its role in daily activity. The importance of the study of human communication is found in its inclusion in educational programs since the rst formal schooling systems were developed over 5,000 years ago.

This research investigated the impact of teacher immediacy and teacher misbehavior on student perceptions of their teachers' credibility on the dimensions of competence, trustworthiness, and caring (goodwill). While the results of the two studies conducted indicated the presence of strong positive main effects for teacher immediacy and strong negative effects for teacher misbehavior on aa three dimensions of credibility (as hypothesized), significant interaction effects were observed between immediacy and misbehavior on all three dimensions of credibility. In most cases when teacher immediacy was low whether the teacher was in the nonmisbehavior or misbehavior condition made no significant difference-both produced perceptions of low credibililty. In contrast, when teacher immediacy was high, teacher misbehavior significantly lowered perceived credibility. Probing of the interaction results suggested that high immediacy tends to soften the negative impact of teacher misbehavior, particularly on the caring dimension. Since behaviors that are likely to be seen as "misbehaviors" by students are often unavoidable by teachers, it is very important that teachers maintain high immediacy to protect their credibility in the classroom.

As intercultural communication and communication competence studies continue to develop, an understanding of how different cultures value these components of human communication is of considerable importance. This study focuses on Thai culture values related to self-perceived communication competence. Several measures of Thai students’ self-perceptions of their own competence in several contexts of communication were obtained—public speaking, meeting, group, dyad, stranger, acquaintance, and friendship. Responses were obtained from over 300 Thai college students. The results indicated that Thai students feel most competent when communicating with acquaintances and/or in a small group. They report feeling somewhat less competent when talking with friends or in meetings. However, they report feeling least competent when communicating in a public speaking setting or talking with strangers. Studies similar to this one, but with participants from other cultures, are needed to prepare people who are going to be called on to communicate in intercultural contexts.

One in five eighth-graders is at serious risk of failing in school or dropping out before graduating from high school. While other characteristics have been identified, few descriptions of the attitudes of academically at-risk students toward communication have been provided. This study examined the attitudes toward communication of 2,793 academically at-risk students at fourteen urban, large, predominantly minority middle or junior high schools from throughout the U.S. Primary attention was devoted to students' fear of communication and self-perception as competent communicators. Compared to national norms, academically at-risk students were found to be more apprehensive of communication and lower in self-perceived communication competence. Several pedagogical strategies for responding to academically at-risk students in the classroom are suggested.

The General Model of Instructional Communication introduced by McCroskey, Valencic, and Richmond (2004) is supported in its original conception by canonical data. This study, however, uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to provide a more detailed analysis. Although the model as originally hypothesized fits the data poorly, analysis of the SEM results suggests adjustments to the original model that substantially improve the model's fit. The revised model accounts for significant portions of the variance in the outcome variables, provides a more detailed explanation of the relationships involved, and has implications for future research. Bootstrapped parameter estimates suggest that the results are replicable.

The current study examined the relationships of organizational orientations and Machiavellianism with nonverbal immediacy and job satisfaction in the organizational context. Participants included 160 full-time employees who worked at various for profit or non-profit organizations in the Mid-Atlantic area. Results indicated that the organizational orientations (i.e., upward mobile, ambivalent, and indifferent) and Machiavellianism were significant predictors of employee nonverbal immediacy and job satisfaction. The results were consistent with a preliminary theoretical model of relationships among these individual differences and organizational outcomes. Alan K. Goodboy & James C. McCroskey 295 Toward a Theoretical Model of the Role of Organizational Orientations and Machiavellianism on Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior and Job Satisfaction Competent organizations are concerned with fostering employee perceptions of job satisfaction. Research has consistently demonstrated that job satisfaction leads to valuable organizational outcomes such as an increase in job performance, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (Crede, Chernyshenko, Stark, Dalal, & Bashshur, 2007; Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984; Riketta, 2008). However, whether or not an employee is satisfied in the workplace is largely determined by individual differences (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006) and organizational communication behavior (Madlock, 2006, 2008; Richmond & McCroskey, 2000). Two individual differences of importance in the workplace include organizational orientations and personality traits (McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2005; McCroskey, Richmond, Johnson, & Smith, 2004). Considering past research, the aim of this study was to assess individual differences (i.e., organizational orientations, Machiavellianism) as potential predictors of employee communication behavior (i.e., immediacy) and job satisfaction. Organizational Orientations The term “organizational orientations” refers to the various ways people approach their roles in an organization and the different approaches people have toward work and the place of work in their lives (Richmond & McCroskey, 2001). Three organizational orientations have been identified: upward mobile, indifferent, and ambivalent. The upward mobile orientation refers to workers who possess a strong desire to be promoted and advance within the organization. These individuals are very devoted to their career and tend to identify with the organization. Considering that much of upward mobile individuals’ lives revolve around their careers, they frequently exert the extra effort needed to be a successful employee. The indifferent orientation refers to workers who are committed to their jobs as a means of earning a living. These individuals are primarily concerned with their paychecks, as their lives, in their view, exist mostly outside of the workplace. Working is a necessary means of having that life, but nothing more. The ambivalent orientation refers to workers who tend to be highly critical of any job and seem to find problems with any organization. These individuals are quite unpredictable and never truly accept any given organization. Ambivalents tend to frequently change jobs, looking for the “perfect” organization. Management usually has no problem seeing ambivalents leave the organization. The organizational orientations concept was advanced decades ago in the field of management (Presthus, 1962) but has just recently drawn the attention of quantitative researchers in the field of communication. McCroskey et al. (2004) conducted research that explained a great deal about the relevance of this concept to organizational communication. In their study, the researchers validated their research measures for the three organizational orientations and determined that organizational orientations are correlated with temperament variables. Canonical correlation analysis determined that the temperament variables of extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism were substantially correlated with the three organizational orientations. Also, organizational orientations were found to predict job satisfaction. Furthermore, McCroskey et al. Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior and Job Satisfaction 296 (2005) discovered that perceptions of supervisor credibility were related negatively to the indifferent and ambivalent orientations. Machiavellianism Another individual difference, Machiavellianism, is a trait that involves strategically manipulating others for person gain, often against the other’s self-interest (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). It was conceptualized by Christie and Geis (1970), in their book Studies In Machiavellianism. According to Christie and Geis (1970), high Machs manipulate people to their advantage and tend to have little emotional involvement in their interpersonal relationships. Previous research gives an accurate depiction of the characteristics and predispositions of the Machiavellian individual. High Machs are less altruistic (Barber, 1994), more likely to cheat (Flynn, Reichard, & Slane, 1987), more flexible in tactic usage (Grams & Rogers, 1990), and less moral and empathetic (Padney & Singh, 1987). Research suggests that employees possessing a Machiavellian personality have both advantages and disadvantages for them in the workplace. With respect to deception, high Machs are much less likely to be caught. Geis and Moon (1981) discovered that high Machs were more convincing liars than low Machs. High Machs were harder to judge and were believed to be telling the truth more when lying than low Machs. The flexibility of the high Mach is another advantageous characteristic. For example, high Machs with an external locus of control have been suggested to be better managers (Gable & Dangello, 1994). The fact that high Machs use deception to get what they desire is problematic. From a supervisor’s organizational standpoint, the high Mach may appear less appealing than the low Mach. As stated before, the high Mach will be less altruistic, empathetic, and more likely to cheat. If the high Mach is perceived as this by superiors, he/she may suffer consequences. Consistent with attribution theory (Heider, 1958), high Machs tend to externalize their failures. Deception and manipulation are merely attempts to exert control over adverse conditions, and meta-analytic methodologies have suggested that high Machs have an external locus of control (Mudrack, 1990). This information denotes that having the Machiavellianism trait does not necessarily entail successful encounters concerning deception, manipulation, or betrayal. Some high Machs are good at manipulating, some are not, but having the trait means that the manipulation does occur. Whether or not deception attempts are successful is another thing. Moreover, varying results make it difficult to really understand the Machiavellian worker. For example, some research has found high Machs to be detached from their job, while other research has found high Machs to be quite involved in their job due to their obsessive compulsive nature (Mudrack, 1989). Also, the differentiation between high and low Machs can be attributed to collective variables. Self-presentation, gender orientation, receptivity to expressive behavior, gender, and self-monitoring have been discovered to differentiate between high and low Machs (Madonna, Wesley, & Anderson, 1989). Considering the discrepancies in organizational communication research regarding Machiavellian employees, several communication researchers have recently resurrected this program of research. For instance, Walter, Anderson, and Martin (2005) discovered that Machiavellian subordinates are motivated to communicate for control, escape, and relaxation. Furthermore, Teven, McCroskey, and Richmond (2006) revealed that Machiavellian supervisors are perceived as less credible by subordinates. Alan K. Goodboy & James C. McCroskey 297 Based on the extant research, it seems plausible that high Machs will lack an upward mobile orientation and have more of an ambivalent (if not indifferent) orientation for several reasons. First, research does not suggest that high Machs outperform low Machs in real-world organizational outcomes, which does not coincide with the upward mobile orientation. Sales performance (Turnbull, 1976), marketing job performance (Hunt & Chonko, 1984), and professor tenure (Hollan, 1975) are not related to the Machiavellianism trait. Upward mobiles however, are likely to perform better in the workplace considering their desire for promotion. Second, research has suggested that high Machs are not as satisfied with their jobs (Gable & Topol, 1987; Hollon, 1983; Hunt & Chonko, 1984; Walter et al., 2005). Upward mobiles however, live to work and tend to identify with organizations. Instead, workers possessing either ambivalent or indifferent orientations are more prone to job dissatisfaction. Third, communication behaviors exhibited by high Machs are not representative of upward mobility preferences. For example, Teven and Winters (2007) revealed that Machiavellian employees exhibit less caring and responsiveness, which is unrepresentative of the upward mobile employee. On the contrary, an upward mobile employee would be likely to communicate caring and should be quite responsive. Fourth, upward mobility has been correlated negatively with Machiavellianism (Heisler & Gemmill, 1977). Based on the four aforementioned research findings, we predicted that: H1: Employees higher in Machiavellianism will have higher ambivalent and indifferent organizational orientations but will have lower upward mobility orientations. Nonverbal Immediacy Nonverbal immediacy refers to “the communicative behaviors used to enhance closeness and reduce physical or psychological distance between indiv

Early research relating to communication apprehension (CA) indicated a strong association between CA in first and second language interactions in Puerto Rico and Micronesia. More recent research has indicated similar associations involving individuals from a variety of Asian cultures. The study discussed in this paper broadens the focus of attention to a variety of communication traits rather than a single trait. In addition to CA, the other traits studied include shyness, assertiveness, responsiveness, compulsive communication, self-perceived communication competence, and willingness to communicate. This report is directed toward communication traits in Puerto Rico in both Spanish and English. This report includes discussion of relationships among communication traits in each language and the differences and similarities in those traits between the languages. Keywords: Communication TraitsSecond Language LearningPuerto Rico Notes Notes [1] All of the participants completed both sets of questionnaires, split in order for first or second language. Unfortunately, these reports were not coded so that the scores on various measures between the two languages could be correlated. Hence, we employed analyses of variance to determine the differences in scores between the languages.

This study developed and validated the Perceived Coaching Scale (PCS). The PCS was created for current study as a measure of the extent to which someone perceives her or his supervisor as engaging in cognitive, affective, and psychomotor oriented coaching, which were designed to measure Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl’s (1956) three domains of learning. The study examined the criterion validity of the PCS and found that all three factors of organizational coaching positively related to both employee motivation and job satisfaction. Jason S. Wrench & James C. McCroskey 275 Organizational Coaching as Instructional Communication Fournies (1999) collected responses from 25,000 supervisors and managers from around the world about one question, “Why don’t employees do what they are supposed to do?” The results of this simple study were quite intriguing. The top four responses to Fournies’ question were: (1) They don’t know what they are supposed to do; (2) They don’t know how to do it; (3) They don’t know why they should do it; and (4) They think they are doing it (lack of feedback). In fact, the first two answers occurred 99 percent of the time (Fournies, 2000). Each of these reasons for why employees are not doing what they are supposed to be doing clearly relates to a problem of learning within the organization. Based on the analysis of the Fournies (1999) study, he realized that clearly there is a disconnect between supervisors and subordinates in the modern organization. Organizations often expect employees to function correctly within the organization without any kind of proper instruction on how to function (Fournies, 2000). Fournies (2000) suggestion for correcting this problem is the current organizational practice known as coaching. For his model of coaching, Fournies turned primarily to research in behavioral psychology and educational psychology. In essence, Fournies realizes that for behavioral change to occur in the workplace it needs to be treated like behavioral change in the classroom. Brounstein (2000), while taking a more management perspective on coaching by stressing leadership, writes that to be a good coach one “challenges and develops your employees’ skills and abilities” (p. 12), which clearly is learning centered in its orientation. In fact, Brounstein’s “tools for coaching” are very reminiscent of instructional communication: setting goals and performance plans, giving performance feedback, conducting periodic performance reviews, guiding development through mentoring and tutoring, tutoring with questions, taking employees under your wing, motivating employee performance, delegating to empower and increase productivity, training for skill development, stimulating and supporting career development, intervening to build improvement in performance. In essence, organizational coaching is instructional communication. The goal of the current study is to create a research tool that measures the extent to which an individual feels that he or she is being coached within the organizational environment. However, it is the contention of the study’s authors that this process should be completed in the realm of educational psychology and instructional communication and not through organizational communication research because organizational communication scholars often confuse learning that occurs within the organization with organizational culture (Weick & Ashford, 2001). If organizational coaching is instructional communication, then measuring coaching in each of the three domains of learning (cognitive, affective, & psychomotor) discussed by Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) would be important. Before discussing the scale designed in the current study, a discussion of the three domains of learning will occur. Three Domains of Learning In 1956, Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl published their first volume examining how to assess learning in the college classroom with their book Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. In this book, Bloom et al. discussed that there were three domains of learning important for educational researchers to understand: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Cognitive Learning. According to Bloom et al. (1956), the cognitive domain “includes those objectives which deal with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills” (p. 7). The researchers noted that most of the research in 276 Organizational Coaching educational psychology and curriculum development has centered around this domain of learning. For this reason, the focus of the first handbook published by the Bloom research team focused on the cognitive domain completely. Bloom et al. believed that cognitive learning could be organized into six major classes with the first exhibiting the lowest levels of learning and the sixth exhibiting the highest level of learning: 1) knowledge, 2) comprehension, 3) application, 4) analysis, 5) synthesis, and 6) evaluation. The entire content of Handbook I devotes itself to explaining how learning occurs at each of these levels, how teachers can teach for learning at the six levels, and how teachers can assess learning at the six levels. While measuring cognitive learning seems simple, creating a general scale to determine whether a person is cognitively learning is difficult because learning in each educational situation is different, so there is no way to create a generalized scale to measure actual cognitive learning. In educational research, cognitive learning has been measured using standardized test scores, grades at the end of a course, and subjective perceptions of learning (Richmond, Lane, & McCroskey, 2006). Research in the field of instructional communication has consistently shown that measuring a student’s belief of her or his own cognitive learning is important for ascertaining the impact of instructional communication (Richmond, Lane, & McCroskey, 2006). Richmond, Lane, and McCroskey (2006) argue for the use of subjective learning, “this method provides useful information concerning learning, that if compared with other data on cognitive learning from laboratory experiments, will give us insights into teacher behaviors that can contribute to increased cognitive learning of students” (p. 176). While this is clearly not the ideal way of measuring cognitive learning, it has proven to be fairly useful in instructional communication research. Affective Learning. The second handbook examining the taxonomy of educational objectives was written by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Basia (1964) to examine the affective domain of learning. Krathwohl et al. defined the affective domain of learning as one where “objectives which emphasize a feeling tone, an emotion, or a degree of acceptance or rejection. Affective objectives vary from simple acceptance to selected phenomena to complex but inherently consistent qualities of character and conscience” (p. 7). Overall, affective learning is learning about “interests, attitudes, appreciations, values, emotional sets or biases” (p. 7). Just like cognitive learning, Krathwohl et al. created a taxonomy of educational objectives for the affective domain: 1) receiving (willing to attend to certain phenomena or stimuli), 2) responding (willing to actively seek out and gain satisfaction from a certain phenomena or stimuli), 3) valuing (belief that a phenomena, stimuli, or behavior has worth), 4) organization (placing values into systems and ranking them in order of importance), and 5) characterization (the individual acts consistently with the values he or she has internalized). For communication scholars, affective learning has provided a considerable amount of research examining classroom communication. Mottet and Beebe (2006) note that affective learning occurs when learners “take ownership of their learning and is manifested when students enact behaviors that demonstrate that they respect, appreciate, and value the knowledge and skills they are acquiring” (p. 8). Mottet and Beebe also note that affective learners ultimately become internally motivated instead of externally motivated. Research has shown that affective learning can substantially predict cognitive learning in the classroom (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1994), which has caused some educational theorists to believe that affective learning is probably the most important domain of learning for actual cognitive and behavioral change (McCroskey, 1998; McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2006; Richmond, Wrench, & Gorham, 2001). Jason S. Wrench & James C. McCroskey 277 Psychomotor Learning. The final domain of learning originally discussed by Bloom et al. (1956) was psychomotor learning, or the manipulative or motor-skill aspect of learning. Krathwohl et al. (1964) defined psychomotor learning as learning that emphasizes “some muscular or motor skill, some manipulation of material objects, or some act which requires neuromuscular co-ordination” (p. 7). Specifically, psychomotor or behavioral learning focuses on an individual’s ability to enact the physical parts of specific behaviors. While both Bloom et al. (1956) and Krathwohl et al. (1964) list psychomotor learning as a domain of learning, they do not focus much attention on psychomotor learning because as Bloom et al. (1956) explained “we find so little about it in secondary schools or colleges, that we do not believe the development of a classification of these objectives would be very useful” (p. 7-8). While there is not a specific taxonomy of psychomotor learning, McCroskey, Richmond, and McCroskey (2006) wrote that there is a range of psychomotor learning. At the low levels of psychomotor learning, are simple hand-eye coordination skills, and at the more advanced levels we have people playing pianos. While not as clearly important in traditional educational settings, acquiring skil