SocioCommunicative Style Scale (SCS)

1. Abstract

The SocioCommunicative Style Scale (SCS), developed by communication scholars James C. McCroskey and Virginia P. Richmond (1990, 1996), is an established, theoretically anchored psychometric instrument designed to assess interpersonal communication style across two foundational dimensions: Assertiveness and Responsiveness. Rooted in social psychology, interpersonal taxonomy, and communication competence theories, the SCS assesses communicative behavioral tendencies through a self-report or observer-rating methodology comprising 20 personality-attribute adjectives. Respondents rate the degree to which each descriptive attribute applies to their typical interpersonal interactions using a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree that it applies) to 5 (Strongly Agree that it applies).

Extensive empirical investigations across instructional, organizational, health, and intercultural communication contexts have repeatedly demonstrated the robust psychometric properties of the SocioCommunicative Style Scale. Factor analytic investigations, including exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), have consistently supported an orthogonal, two-factor latent structure corresponding to Assertiveness (agency, task orientation, and communicative dominance) and Responsiveness (communion, socio-emotional warmth, and interpersonal sensitivity). Internal consistency reliability coefficients for both subscales are consistently high, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .82 to .91 for Assertiveness and from .86 to .93 for Responsiveness. Test-retest stability coefficients over multi-week intervals demonstrate that socio-communicative style functions as an enduring trait-like personality orientation while maintaining appropriate situational sensitivity. The SCS has proven instrumental in predicting a broad array of relational outcomes, such as instructional clarity, supervisory satisfaction, conversational satisfaction, leadership efficacy, and interpersonal attraction. This comprehensive article provides an exhaustive academic overview of the SCS, including its historical origins, theoretical framework, construct taxonomy, validity profiles, psychometric reliability, factor structures, administration and scoring protocols, full authentic instrument items, and scholarly significance.

2. Keywords

SocioCommunicative Style Scale, SCS, Assertiveness, Responsiveness, Interpersonal Communication, James C. McCroskey, Virginia P. Richmond, Communicative Competence, Psychological Assessment, Factor Analysis

3. Authors

The SocioCommunicative Style Scale was designed, validated, and refined by two of the most influential figures in contemporary instructional and interpersonal communication research:

• James C. McCroskey, Ed.D. (1934–2012): Formerly Professor Emeritus and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University (Morgantown, WV, USA) and subsequently Scholar in Residence at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. McCroskey was a pioneering scholar in communication apprehension, instructional communication, teacher immediacy, socio-communicative orientations, and quantitative psychometrics within human communication. His prolific career produced over 200 scholarly articles, dozens of foundational textbooks, and widely adopted measurement instruments including the PRCA-24, WTC, and SCS.
• Virginia P. Richmond, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Richmond is an internationally recognized authority on nonverbal communication, instructional communication, interpersonal communication dynamics, organizational power, and socio-communicative orientation. She served as President of the Eastern Communication Association (ECA) and Editor of Communication Education.

Scholarly communications and inquiries regarding the historical development and open-access distribution of their psychometric instruments are archived through academic repositories associated with West Virginia University’s Department of Communication Studies and the official open-access scholarship archives maintained at jamescmccroskey.com.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the SocioCommunicative Style Scale (SCS) is to provide an empirically sound, theoretically grounded, and administratively efficient self-report and other-report metric for quantifying an individual’s perceived communicative behavioral style in social exchanges. Historically derived from early psychological work on sex roles and interpersonal traits, communication researchers recognized that interpersonal interactions are profoundly governed by behavioral tendencies that can be synthesized into two primary communicative vectors: the degree to which an individual initiates, defends, and directs communication (assertiveness) and the degree to which an individual provides emotional support, empathy, and conversational sensitivity (responsiveness).

Theoretical Rationale and Communication Taxonomy

Prior to the introduction of the SCS, many assessments measuring interpersonal styles conflated communication behavior with deeply embedded psychopathological dispositions or relied upon complex, multi-scale personality inventories such as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) or the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). While those instruments successfully captured psychological masculinity and femininity, McCroskey and Richmond argued that interpersonal researchers required an instrument focused strictly on observable, communicatively relevant behaviors rather than generalized gender-role stereotypes or internalized self-concepts. By isolating the social and behavioral manifestations of agency and communion, the SCS operationalizes how individuals express their thoughts, defend their convictions, listen, and attend to the emotional needs of conversational partners.

Research Applications

In empirical communication research, the SCS functions as a central independent, mediating, or moderating variable across diverse communication subdisciplines:

• Instructional Communication: Researchers use the SCS (often in its alter-reporting format, the SocioCommunicative Orientation or SCO) to examine how teachers’ assertive and responsive behaviors influence student cognitive learning, affective learning, motivation, classroom engagement, and perceptions of teacher credibility.
• Organizational Dynamics and Leadership: In organizational communication, the scale evaluates managerial styles. Studies demonstrate that leaders exhibiting an “integrative” or “competent” communicative style (high in both assertiveness and responsiveness) foster higher subordinate job satisfaction, lower burnout, greater organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and improved conflict resolution outcomes.
• Healthcare Communication: Medical interaction research utilizes the SCS to examine clinician-patient relationships, evaluating how a physician’s or nurse’s responsiveness and assertiveness correlate with patient treatment adherence, informed consent comprehension, and diagnostic satisfaction.
• Intercultural and Small-Group Communication: Scholars explore how cultural norms dictate preferred thresholds of communicative assertiveness versus responsiveness, shedding light on communicative adaptation, negotiation strategies, and conversational coherence among culturally heterogeneous dyads.

Clinical and Applied Educational Training

Beyond academic research, the SCS is broadly utilized in communicative competence workshops, executive leadership coaching, and interpersonal skills training. By scoring self-perceptions against norms or comparing self-evaluations with peer-evaluations, trainees discover their dominant communicative quadrant—whether Competent/Versatile (High Assertiveness / High Responsiveness), Aggressive (High Assertiveness / Low Responsiveness), Submissive (Low Assertiveness / High Responsiveness), or Incompetent/Non-communicative (Low Assertiveness / Low Responsiveness). This diagnosis enables targeted behavioral modification, enabling individuals to enhance either their active task-oriented advocacy or their empathic relational listening.

5. Psychological Construct

The SocioCommunicative Style Scale operationalizes interpersonal communication through a two-dimensional construct model comprising Assertiveness and Responsiveness. These two dimensions are conceptualized as orthogonal (statistically independent), indicating that an individual’s standing on assertiveness does not determine, restrict, or predict their level of responsiveness.

Dimension 1: Communicative Assertiveness

Assertiveness is defined within socio-communicative theory as the capacity and behavioral tendency of an individual to initiate conversations, express opinions, defend their personal rights and beliefs, make reasonable requests, and actively influence interpersonal dynamics without violating the personal integrity of others. It represents the communicative manifestation of agency, instrumental behavior, and task orientation.

In the SCS, assertiveness is assessed through items that denote self-assuredness, determination, leadership, and independence. Prototypical behaviors include:

• Defending Beliefs and Stances: Articulating personal values firmly, even in the presence of disagreement or social pressure (captured by items such as “defends own beliefs” and “willing to take a stand”).
• Communicative Force and Energy: Exhibiting high presence and verbal efficacy during discourse (captured by “forceful” and “has strong personality”).
• Directive Leadership and Autonomy: Initiating problem-solving sequences, organizing groups, and guiding conversations toward productive conclusions (“independent”, “assertive”, “dominant”, “acts as a leader”, and “competitive”).

Importantly, McCroskey and Richmond differentiated assertiveness from destructive communicative behaviors like hostility and verbal aggressiveness. Constructive assertiveness maintains relational integrity, whereas unchecked verbal aggressiveness attacks the self-concept of others. The inclusion of items like “forceful” and “dominant” reflects communicative drive and presence rather than malicious intent.

Dimension 2: Communicative Responsiveness

Responsiveness reflects an individual’s communicative sensitivity, emotional availability, empathy, warmth, and active other-orientation during interaction. It corresponds to the communal, socio-emotional dimension of human interaction, representing how effectively an individual attends to, values, and validates the conversational contributions and emotional states of others.

In the SCS, responsiveness is assessed through items measuring active, supportive, and compassionate behaviors. Prototypical expressions include:

• Interpersonal Warmth and Approachability: Displaying welcoming, friendly nonverbal and verbal cues that establish rapport (captured by items such as “warm” and “friendly”).
• Empathic Engagement and Compassion: Actively processing the affective experience of conversational partners, demonstrating sincere concern, and validating feelings (reflected in “sympathetic”, “compassionate”, and “tender”).
• Receptivity and Relational Sensitivity: Listening actively, showing genuine respect, and adapting communication based on the interlocutor’s comfort (assessed via “helpful”, “responsive to others”, “sensitive to the needs of others”, “sincere”, and “gentle”).

The Four-Fold Communicative Typology

Because Assertiveness and Responsiveness are orthogonal dimensions, crossing their high and low dichotomies (or median splits) yields four distinct socio-communicative interaction styles:

• Competent / Versatile Style (High Assertiveness, High Responsiveness): Individuals who blend strong agency with deep empathy. They can direct discussions, state convictions clearly, resolve impasses, and lead initiatives while remaining sensitive, supportive, and receptive to others. This style is empirically associated with the highest levels of interpersonal attraction, leadership effectiveness, and instructional success.
• Submissive / Responsive Style (Low Assertiveness, High Responsiveness): Individuals who are empathic, warm, supportive, and accommodating, but reluctant to voice their own needs, negotiate boundaries, or assume leadership roles. They may risk conversational marginalization despite high likeability.
• Aggressive / Dominant Style (High Assertiveness, Low Responsiveness): Individuals who communicate with strong force, direction, and independence, but lack warmth, active listening skills, and socio-emotional sensitivity. Their task-focused communication can be perceived as abrasive, intimidating, or dismissive.
• Incompetent / Non-Communicative Style (Low Assertiveness, Low Responsiveness): Individuals who neither assert their own viewpoints nor offer supportive relational feedback. Interactions with these individuals are often characterized by conversational withdrawal, emotional detachment, and interpersonal ambiguity.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework undergirding the SocioCommunicative Style Scale draws upon converging paradigms from social psychology, personality theory, and transactional communication models.

Agency and Communion: The Dual Fundamental Dimensions

The primary conceptual foundation for the SCS is David Bakan’s (1966) duality of human existence: Agency and Communion. Bakan posited that all human functioning involves two core motivations:

• Agency: The striving for individuality, self-assertion, mastery, expansion, and control over one’s environment.
• Communion: The striving for union, connection, intimacy, belonging, and solidarity with other living beings.

In subsequent decades, social psychologists translated these constructs into empirical self-concept instruments. Sandra Bem (1974) operationalized them in the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) as psychological masculinity (instrumentality) and femininity (expressiveness). Similarly, Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974) introduced the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). While these researchers demonstrated that psychological androgyny—the integration of high masculinity and high femininity—predicted greater behavioral adaptability and psychological health, communication scholars recognized that psychological gender constructs were indirect proxies for communication behaviors. McCroskey and Richmond operationalized these fundamental modalities specifically as communication styles: Assertiveness serves as the communicative operationalization of Agency, and Responsiveness serves as the communicative operationalization of Communion.

Interpersonal Circumplex Models

The SCS also aligns closely with the Interpersonal Circumplex (IPC) tradition pioneered by Timothy Leary (1957) and expanded by Jerry Wiggins (1979) and Donald Kiesler (1983). The circumplex organizes interpersonal interactions along two orthogonal axes: Dominance versus Submission (the vertical axis) and Affiliation/Love versus Hostility/Coldness (the horizontal axis). Assertiveness aligns directly with the Dominance axis (agency, communicative control, leadership), while Responsiveness maps onto the Affiliation axis (warmth, empathy, social support). By evaluating communicative behaviors along these continuous axes, the SCS provides an empirically tractable translation of circumplex theory tailored to conversational contexts.

Wiemann’s Communicative Competence Model

John M. Wiemann’s (1977) foundational model of communicative competence posited that competent communicators achieve their personal interactional goals (effectiveness) while maintaining face and relational harmony with their partners (appropriateness). McCroskey and Richmond integrated this paradigm by demonstrating that assertiveness drives communicative effectiveness (enabling individuals to achieve functional goals and articulate clear ideas), while responsiveness ensures communicative appropriateness (affirming partners, exhibiting conversational involvement, and maintaining relational bonds).

7. Validity

Construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity for the SocioCommunicative Style Scale have been verified through extensive empirical research over three decades.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Richmond and McCroskey (1990) tested the structural integrity of the assertiveness and responsiveness dimensions. Administering the scale to large undergraduate and professional samples, they confirmed that the two dimensions represent distinct behavioral factors. Items developed to evaluate assertiveness loaded strongly onto their primary factor without substantial cross-loadings onto responsiveness, and vice versa. Subsequent investigations by Thomas, Richmond, and McCroskey (1994) affirmed factorial stability across both self-report (SCS) and other-report (SocioCommunicative Orientation; SCO) formats.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been evaluated through correlations with conceptually linked psychological and communicative measures:

• Psychological Androgyny and Gender Traits: Scores on the SCS Assertiveness subscale correlate strongly and positively with the Masculinity/Instrumentality scales of the BSRI and PAQ (correlations typically between .65 and .78). The Responsiveness subscale exhibits strong positive correlations with the Femininity/Expressiveness dimensions (correlations typically between .68 and .82).
• Interaction Involvement: Responsiveness correlates positively with Cegala’s (1981) Interaction Involvement Measure, particularly on the Attentiveness and Perceptiveness dimensions (r values from .45 to .62), confirming that responsive individuals are cognitively and emotionally attuned to their communicative environments.
• Nonverbal Immediacy: Both Assertiveness and Responsiveness correlate positively with Richmond, McCroskey, and Johnson’s (2003) Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS). Responsive individuals score significantly higher in expressiveness, eye contact, smiling, and open body postures.
• Leadership Effectiveness: In organizational management studies, Assertiveness correlates positively with leader task behaviors, while Responsiveness correlates positively with leader consideration and relational maintenance behaviors (Yukl, 2002).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by the consistent statistical orthogonality of the two dimensions. In psychometric evaluations (e.g., McCroskey & Richmond, 1996; Cole & McCroskey, 2003), the correlation between Assertiveness and Responsiveness is negligible to weak (typically ranging between r = -.08 and r = .14, p > .05), confirming that these constructs assess distinct psychological and behavioral domains.

Furthermore, the SCS Assertiveness scale diverges meaningfully from destructive constructs such as Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness Scale. While assertiveness assesses self-advocacy and goal pursuit, it does not correlate with desires to insult, belittle, or inflict psychological pain on others. Similarly, Responsiveness shows negative or null correlations with interpersonal alienation, neurotic detachment, and communication apprehension.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The SCS predicts substantial variance in diverse interpersonal, instructional, and organizational outcomes:

• Instructional Outcomes: Instructors rated high in both assertiveness and responsiveness are perceived by students as significantly more credible (competence, character, caring), clearer in pedagogical explanations, and more effective at fostering affective and cognitive learning (Martin, Chesebro, & Mottet, 1997; Chesebro, 2003).
• Relational and Marital Quality: In dyadic research, partners who rate one another high in responsiveness report greater mutual satisfaction, trust, and constructive conflict resolution styles, whereas partners low in both dimensions report higher conflict avoidance and relational instability.
• Workplace Satisfaction: Employees working under supervisors with a versatile socio-communicative style (high assertiveness and high responsiveness) report significantly higher job satisfaction, reduced turnover intentions, and greater organizational commitment compared to those managed by aggressive or non-communicative supervisors (Richmond, McCroskey, & Davis, 1986; Madlock, 2008).

8. Reliability

The SocioCommunicative Style Scale consistently demonstrates strong internal consistency and temporal stability across broad demographic, educational, and professional populations.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across validation studies and empirical investigations, the internal consistency of both the Assertiveness and Responsiveness subscales reliably exceeds standard psychometric thresholds (Cronbach’s α ≥ .80):

• Assertiveness Subscale: In their baseline validation study, Richmond and McCroskey (1990) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .86 for the assertiveness items. Subsequent studies across large undergraduate and organizational cohorts (e.g., Thomas et al., 1994; Wooten & McCroskey, 1996; Cole & McCroskey, 2003) have consistently observed alpha values ranging from .82 to .91. Composite reliability coefficients in structural equation models routinely exceed .85, indicating high internal coherence across the assertiveness item pool.
• Responsiveness Subscale: The responsiveness items consistently yield high reliability coefficients, frequently surpassing the assertiveness dimension. Richmond and McCroskey (1990) reported an alpha of .91. Replications consistently demonstrate alpha values ranging between .87 and .94 (e.g., Martin & Anderson, 1998; Myers, Martin, & Mottet, 2002), confirming high homogeneity among items assessing communicative empathy and warmth.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability testing over two- to six-week test-retest intervals yields stability coefficients typically ranging from r = .78 to r = .88 for Assertiveness, and r = .80 to r = .89 for Responsiveness. These findings confirm that while socio-communicative style can adjust to specific contextual constraints (e.g., formal presentations versus informal peer interactions), baseline communicative style operates as an enduring, trait-like disposition over time.

9. Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the SocioCommunicative Style Scale has been validated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In initial scale development studies (Richmond & McCroskey, 1990), the 20 adjective items were subjected to principal axis factoring (PAF) and principal components analysis (PCA) with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. The analysis yielded an unambiguous two-factor latent structure corresponding to the two theoretical dimensions:

• Factor 1 (Responsiveness): Consistently accounted for the largest proportion of total variance (typically 24% to 32%). Items such as “sympathetic”, “compassionate”, “sensitive to the needs of others”, “warm”, “tender”, and “sincere” exhibited high primary loadings (ranging from .62 to .84) with cross-loadings onto the Assertiveness factor rarely exceeding .20.
• Factor 2 (Assertiveness): Accounted for an additional 18% to 26% of the variance. Items such as “defends own beliefs”, “forceful”, “has strong personality”, “assertive”, “dominant”, and “acts as a leader” demonstrated substantial primary factor loadings (ranging from .55 to .81) with negligible cross-loadings onto Responsiveness.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (e.g., Cole & McCroskey, 2003; Teven, 2008) have compared the theoretical two-factor orthogonal model against competing structural configurations, such as unidimensional models and oblique models:

• One-Factor Model: Constraining all 20 items to load onto a single general “communicative competence” factor yields poor model fit: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (χ²/df > 6.5, RMSEA > .12, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] < .65, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] < .60).
• Two-Factor Orthogonal Model: Specifying two uncorrelated latent factors (Assertiveness and Responsiveness) demonstrates superior fit to the empirical data: χ²/df values frequently between 1.8 and 2.4, RMSEA between .045 and .062 (with a 90% confidence interval spanning .038 to .069), CFI ranging from .93 to .97, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .055.
• Two-Factor Oblique Model: Allowing the latent Assertiveness and Responsiveness factors to correlate freely yields virtually identical fit indices to the orthogonal model, with factor intercorrelations typically hovering close to zero (r = .02 to .11), confirming that orthogonality represents the most parsimonious structural explanation.

Measurement Invariance

Multigroup CFA investigations have tested the measurement equivalence of the SCS across demographic groups. Tests for configural, metric, and scalar invariance across sex (male vs. female) and educational contexts have confirmed that the 20 items measure Assertiveness and Responsiveness on equivalent scales across populations. This ensures that observed group differences reflect genuine variations in communicative style rather than psychometric artifact or measurement bias.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The SocioCommunicative Style Scale is a standardized, self-administered psychometric questionnaire. Below are the operational attributes, administration guidelines, and scoring conventions:

• Instrument Name: SocioCommunicative Style Scale (SCS)
• Alternative Assessment Form: SocioCommunicative Orientation (SCO) Scale (identical 20 items worded for observer/other-evaluation)
• Authors: James C. McCroskey and Virginia P. Richmond (1990, 1996)
• Constructs Measured: Interpersonal Assertiveness (communicative agency, leadership, and independence) and Interpersonal Responsiveness (communicative empathy, warmth, and other-orientation)
• Total Number of Items: 20 adjective attributes
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type response scale
• Response Scale Anchors:
  • (5) = strongly agree that it applies
  • (4) = agree that it applies
  • (3) = are undecided
  • (2) = disagree that it applies
  • (1) = strongly disagree
• Subscale Item Allocation:
  • Assertiveness Subscale: Composed of items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 18, and 20 (Note: Item 19 “aggressive” was included in the original 20-item item pool; in McCroskey & Richmond’s standard scoring key, Item 19 is retained in the administered test as an adjective descriptor but excluded from the 9-item assertiveness composite score to avoid confounding assertiveness with verbal aggression).
  • Responsiveness Subscale: Composed of 10 items: 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Assertiveness Composite Score: Sum the raw ratings of the 9 assertiveness items: (Item 2 + Item 3 + Item 5 + Item 6 + Item 9 + Item 11 + Item 14 + Item 18 + Item 20). Theoretical range: 9 to 45.
  • Responsiveness Composite Score: Sum the raw ratings of the 10 responsiveness items: (Item 1 + Item 4 + Item 7 + Item 8 + Item 10 + Item 12 + Item 13 + Item 15 + Item 16 + Item 17). Theoretical range: 10 to 50.
  • Alternate Mean Scoring: Alternatively, researchers may compute average item scores by dividing the respective sum by 9 for Assertiveness and by 10 for Responsiveness, producing a 1.0 to 5.0 metric for each dimension.
• Normative Interpretation and Cutoffs:
  • Assertiveness Norms: High Assertiveness > 35; Moderate Assertiveness = 28 to 35; Low Assertiveness < 28 (based on McCroskey & Richmond sample distributions).
  • Responsiveness Norms: High Responsiveness > 40; Moderate Responsiveness = 32 to 40; Low Responsiveness < 32.
  • Quadrants: Crossing Assertiveness and Responsiveness using high/low median or tertiary cutoffs classifies respondents into one of four styles: Competent/Versatile (High/High), Responsive/Submissive (Low Assertive/High Responsive), Aggressive (High Assertive/Low Responsive), or Non-Communicative/Incompetent (Low/Low).
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete and score.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The SocioCommunicative Style Scale was originally formulated in 1990 by Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey, with subsequent textbook operationalizations refined in 1996. True to the academic philosophy of its authors, the SCS is placed in the public domain for scholarly, educational, and research applications.

Licensing and Research Use:

• Non-Commercial Research & Teaching: The SCS is completely open-access and free of licensing fees for non-profit academic research, student theses, dissertation projects, classroom demonstrations, and educational instruction. No formal written permission is required from the authors or their copyright estates, provided that proper scholarly citation is given to the authors’ original foundational publications.
• Commercial and Consulting Applications: Use of the instrument within proprietary commercial software, fee-for-service management consulting packages, or for-profit leadership diagnostics generally requires due diligence in acknowledging the source work or contacting the copyright holders/publishers (Waveland Press or the McCroskey academic trust).
• Archive Location: The official instrument descriptions, scoring instructions, and associated communication measures remain accessible via the academic memorial repository: James C. McCroskey Measures Archive.

12. References

Below are primary foundational references and validation studies for the SocioCommunicative Style Scale in APA 7th edition format:

• Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Rand McNally.
• Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
• Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378460
• Chesebro, J. W. (2003). Effects of teacher clarity and socio-communicative style on student affect, learning, and perceptions of teacher credibility. Communication Research Reports, 20(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090309388809
• Cole, J. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). The association of socio-communicative style, socio-communicative orientation, and emotional intelligence. Communication Research Reports, 20(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090309388811
• Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376126
• Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185
• Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943607309351
• Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The relationship between socio-communicative style and aggressive communication traits. Communication Research Reports, 15(3), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099809362128
• Martin, M. M., Chesebro, J. W., & Mottet, T. P. (1997). Students’ perceptions of instructors’ socio-communicative style and the development of student-teacher relationships. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388686
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of human communication: An interpersonal perspective. Waveland Press.
• Myers, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Mottet, T. P. (2002). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors: Considering socio-communicative style, communicator style, and teacher immediacy. Communication Research Reports, 19(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090209384843
• Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the assertiveness-responsiveness scale. Psychological Reports, 67(2), 449–450. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.67.2.449
• Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Davis, L. M. (1986). The relationship of supervisor use of power and socio-communicative style to employee satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 34(4), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378609369652
• Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. E. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370168
• Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076857
• Teven, J. J. (2008). Socio-communicative style and emotional intelligence as predictors of teacher caring and student learning. Communication Research Reports, 25(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090701831750
• Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359946
• Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 3(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00518.x
• Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395
• Wooten, A. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Student trust of teacher as a function of socio-communicative style of teacher and socio-communicative orientation of student. Communication Research Reports, 13(1), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099609362077

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)