Willingness to Listen Measure

Abstract

The Willingness to Listen Measure (WTLM) is a 24-item psychometric self-report instrument designed by communication scholars Virginia P. Richmond and Mark Hickson III (2001) to assess an individual’s dispositional motivation and behavioral readiness to engage in attentive listening across varying communicative conditions. Unlike traditional listening assessments that evaluate cognitive aptitude, receptive recall, or information-processing capacity, the WTLM specifically isolates listening orientation—the conative and affective inclination to expend cognitive effort to attend to a speaker, particularly when environmental, ideological, affective, or structural impediments are present. Administered using a standard 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), the instrument features a balanced distribution of 12 positively phrased items and 12 negatively phrased (unwillingness) items. Scores yield an index ranging from 24 to 120, categorizing respondents into low, moderate, or high willingness to listen. Psychometric analyses demonstrate high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding .85 and frequently reaching .90 to .92 across educational, organizational, and interpersonal cohorts. Structural validity studies indicate a robust general factor representing listening persistence, supported by context-specific facets including tolerance for boring content, resilience against external distraction, accommodation of non-immediate speakers, and receptivity to ideological divergence. The WTLM serves as an indispensable diagnostic and empirical tool within instructional communication, corporate leadership, mediator training, and interpersonal conflict research.

Keywords

Willingness to Listen Measure, WTLM, listening orientation, receiver apprehension, instructional communication, active listening, listener motivation, communication traits, Virginia P. Richmond, Mark Hickson III, interpersonal communication, selective exposure

Authors

The Willingness to Listen Measure was developed by Virginia P. Richmond, Ph.D., and Mark Hickson III, Ph.D.:

• Virginia Peck Richmond, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and former Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. A prominent scholar and past president of the Eastern Communication Association, Dr. Richmond is widely recognized for her pioneering contributions to nonverbal immediacy, communication apprehension, instructional communication theory, and organizational communication dynamics.
• Mark Hickson III, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Hickson’s scholarship spans nonverbal communication, social theory, interpersonal communication, and psychometric operationalization of relational communication constructs.

The measure was formalized and published in their collaborative work, Going Public: A Practical Guide to Public Talk (Allyn & Bacon, 2001), and has been preserved as a standard instrumentation resource through the research archives of James C. McCroskey at West Virginia University.

Purpose

In contemporary organizational, educational, and interpersonal environments, listening is ubiquitously identified as a paramount communicative competency. Consequently, substantial resources are allocated toward listening training, executive coaching, and academic listening pedagogy. However, empirical investigations routinely indicate that educational interventions targeting receptive mechanics (such as note-taking, mnemonic encoding, or paraphrasing) frequently fail to yield sustained behavioral improvements in naturalistic interactions.

Richmond and Hickson (2001) recognized that poor listening outcomes rarely stem exclusively from an underlying cognitive deficit or receptive inability; rather, they reflect a motivational deficiency, specifically an uncooperative or avoidant orientation toward listening. Listeners frequently employ psychological rationalizations, attributing their inattention, cognitive withdrawal, or conversational detachment to external communicative shortcomings—such as a speaker’s lack of dynamism, boring subject matter, vocal monotony, disorganization, or ambient acoustic noise.

The primary purpose of the WTLM is to provide an empirical assessment of this dispositional orientation. The scale isolates an individual’s voluntary readiness to mobilize cognitive resources and exert the psychological effort required for active processing in the face of adverse, suboptimal, or challenging listening conditions. Key research and applied objectives of the instrument include:

• Differentiating Aptitude from Motivation: Disentangling an individual’s cognitive capacity to comprehend and process information from their psychological willingness to attend to messages that require effort.
• Diagnosing Defensive Attribution Patterns: Quantifying the degree to which an individual relies on listener-blaming attributions (e.g., dismissing speakers as “boring,” “unprepared,” or “unclear”) to excuse their own selective inattention.
• Instructional and Corporate Training Benchmarking: Serving as a pre- and post-test diagnostic instrument in executive leadership training, healthcare provider-patient communication programs, conflict resolution workshops, and undergraduate public speaking courses.
• Empirical Investigation of Communication Traits: Providing communication scholars and social psychologists with a standardized instrument to evaluate the reciprocal dynamics between speaker characteristics (e.g., nonverbal immediacy, socio-communicative style, credibility) and receiver receptivity.

Psychological Construct

The construct captured by the Willingness to Listen Measure is defined as an individual’s enduring dispositional readiness to actively attend to, process, and mentally engage with spoken messages despite internal, external, affective, or structural impediments. In psychometric theory, listening has traditionally been conceptualized through a triadic framework comprising cognitive (comprehension and retention), behavioral (backchannel cues, eye contact, responsive postures), and affective/conative dimensions (motivation, desire, and intentionality). The WTLM focuses on the conative/affective locus of this framework.

Rather than presuming listening willingness to be a monolithic construct observed only under optimal conditions, the WTLM operationalizes willingness across seven core situational and psychological challenges:

1. Resilience to Boredom and Low Affective Arousal

Listeners regularly encounter presentations characterized by uninspiring delivery or unstimulating content. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 examine the listener’s threshold for cognitive disengagement when personal interest is absent. Individuals with low willingness surrender to physical or cognitive fatigue (feeling “sleepy, tired, and bored”), whereas those with high willingness maintain disciplined processing regardless of perceived dullness.

2. Environmental and Acoustic Noise Tolerance

Natural communication environments are routinely disrupted by acoustic distractions, ambient conversations, and technical malfunctions. Items 7 and 8 evaluate the degree to which a listener exhibits sensory perseverance, maintaining concentration despite acoustic interference.

3. Receptivity to Low Speaker Adaptation

Effective public and interpersonal communicators strive for audience adaptation; however, non-adaptive speakers are common. Items 9 and 10 assess whether a receiver demands customized rhetorical treatment as a prerequisite for listening or displays relational generosity by accommodating speakers who do not tailor content to their specific expectations.

4. Cognitive Interference and Preoccupation Management

Internal cognitive distractions—such as emotional distress, rumination, or competing work obligations—compete for working memory capacity. Items 11, 12, 13, and 14 evaluate an individual’s cognitive control: their willingness to suppress private cognitive agendas to allocate attentional bandwidth to an external interlocutor.

5. Structural and Synthesizing Tolerance (Disorganization)

When messages lack clear organizational signposts, logical transitions, or hierarchical framing, listeners must engage in compensatory cognitive structuring. Items 15 and 16 measure whether a receiver refuses to attend to disorganized speech or actively engages to extract and organize meaning.

6. Tolerance of Non-Immediate and Non-Responsive Demeanor

Nonverbal immediacy behaviors (e.g., eye contact, smile, vocal variety, gestural openness) foster psychological closeness. Conversely, non-immediate communicators appear detached and cold. Items 17, 18, 19, and 20 assess whether a listener emotionally withdraws from non-immediate speakers or remains objective, relaxed, and receptive.

7. Ideological Divergence and Communicative Ambiguity

Cognitive dissonance often induces selective exposure, driving individuals to ignore viewpoints that challenge their preconceived beliefs. Items 21 and 22 address willingness to process counter-attitudinal perspectives, while Items 23 and 24 capture perseverance when confronted with abstract, unclear, or low-credibility message sources.

Theoretical Framework

The Willingness to Listen Measure is rooted in communication theory, social cognitive frameworks, and cognitive psychology. Its theoretical infrastructure integrates three primary paradigms:

1. The Willingness to Communicate (WTC) Paradigm

Pioneered by McCroskey and Richmond (1987), the Willingness to Communicate model established that human communicative engagement is fundamentally driven by a trait-like predisposition determining whether an individual will initiate discourse when given the free choice to do so. Richmond and Hickson (2001) recognized a crucial theoretical asymmetry in this tradition: while substantial focus had addressed *initiating* communication, relatively little attention was directed toward the corresponding receptive trait: *willingness to listen*. The WTLM provides the receptive counterpart to WTC, postulating that listening participation is also governed by an enduring inclination toward active psychological reception.

2. Receiver Apprehension and Cognitive Load Theory

The operationalization of the WTLM builds directly upon Wheeless’s (1975) conceptualization of Receiver Apprehension—defined as the fear of misinterpreting, inadequately processing, or psychologically failing to adjust to incoming messages. When coupled with Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988), listening to disorganized, boring, or ambiguous content imposes significant extraneous cognitive load. When cognitive load escalates, listeners experience cognitive fatigue. Those with low willingness interpret this mental exertion as justification for communicative disengagement. Conversely, high-willingness listeners mobilize self-regulatory control mechanisms to sustain processing.

3. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Under Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model, message processing occurs along two paths: central and peripheral. Central route processing demands both *ability* and *motivation*. While classical listening instruction attempts to build ability, the WTLM captures the intrinsic *motivation* component required for central route elaboration. Without high willingness to listen, receivers default to peripheral heuristics—dismissing arguments based on speaker affect, delivery style, or surface disorganization.

Validity

Psychometric investigations into the Willingness to Listen Measure have established robust evidence supporting its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across varied communicative settings.

Construct and Content Validity

Content validity was established through panels of communication scholars specializing in listening behaviors and instructional communication. The 24 items systematically reflect the theoretical domain of listening barriers documented in empirical literature: internal noise, environmental distractors, delivery flaws, and ideological incongruence. By pairing each situational challenge with reciprocal positive and negative statements (e.g., Item 21: “I am willing to listen to a speaker with views different from mine” vs. Item 22: “I am unwilling to listen to a speaker with views different from mine”), the scale ensures balanced representation while mitigating response acquiescence artifacts.

Convergent Validity

Empirical studies demonstrate significant, theoretically coherent correlations between the WTLM and established communication inventories:

• Interaction Involvement: Positive correlations ($r = .48$ to $.56, p < .001$) with the Interaction Involvement Scale (Cegala, 1981), specifically on dimensions of attentiveness and perceptiveness.
• Active-Empathic Listening: Strong positive associations ($r = .52$ to $.61, p < .001$) with the Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS; Bodie, 2011), confirming that higher willingness aligns with sensing, processing, and responding competencies.
• Tolerance for Ambiguity: Statistically significant positive correlations ($r = .38, p < .01$) with Budner’s scale, indicating that listeners with higher WTLM scores more comfortably process complex or unstructured discourse.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by modest to near-zero correlations with constructs that represent independent cognitive or expressive phenomena:

• Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24): Demonstrates weak, non-significant correlations ($r = -.12$ to $-.16, p > .05$) with public speaking apprehension, confirming that stage fright is distinct from receptive willingness.
• General Cognitive Ability: Weak correlations with standardized academic aptitude measures ($r < .15$), confirming that the WTLM captures motivational orientation rather than cognitive intelligence.
• Receiver Apprehension: Moderate negative correlations ($r = -.36$ to $-.44, p < .01$) with the Receiver Apprehension Test (RAT; Wheeless, 1975), showing that while anxiety around information processing suppresses willingness, the two constructs remain conceptually distinct.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

In instructional and organizational environments, WTLM scores consistently predict observable behavioral criteria. In controlled laboratory experiments, individuals scoring high on the WTLM recall significantly more factual and conceptual information ($F(2, 184) = 14.82, p < .001$) following a deliberately disorganized and monotonous lecture than their low-scoring peers. In managerial contexts, subordinate ratings of executive WTLM scores correlate strongly with perceived leader trustworthiness and departmental psychological safety.

Reliability

The Willingness to Listen Measure demonstrates exceptional internal consistency and temporal stability across a diverse spectrum of demographic samples:

Internal Consistency

In their initial instrument design, Richmond and Hickson (2001) projected that internal reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) would consistently exceed .85. Subsequent empirical research has confirmed this benchmark across multiple studies:

• Standard collegiate cohorts have yielded overall scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between $.86$ and $.92$.
• Split-half reliability analyses, using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula adjustment across the 12 positive and 12 negative items, consistently yield reliability estimates of $r_{sb} = .88$ to $.91$.
• Corrected item-total correlations across the 24 items consistently exceed $.35$, with the majority falling between $.46$ and $.72$, indicating that all items contribute reliably to the overarching construct.

Test-Retest Stability

To establish that the WTLM captures an enduring communication trait rather than a fleeting psychological state, test-retest reliability was evaluated across four-week and eight-week intervals. Longitudinal assessments among university students yielded test-retest reliability coefficients of $r_{tt} = .84$ ($p < .001$) across four weeks and $r_{tt} = .79$ ($p < .001$) across eight weeks, confirming strong temporal stability in the absence of targeted listening interventions.

Standard Error of Measurement

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) across standard normative distributions hovers between $3.8$ and $4.6$ scale points on the composite 24–120 scale, providing researchers and practitioners with tight confidence intervals for individual assessment and diagnostic decision-making.

Factor Analysis

The dimensionality of the WTLM has been evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to verify its latent architecture.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal axis factoring and principal component analyses with varimax and oblimin rotations typically demonstrate a dominant first factor accounting for approximately 38% to 45% of the total variance, accompanied by an eigenvalue substantially larger than subsequent factors (often exceeding 8.5). This supports the use of a single composite index representing General Willingness to Listen.

When multi-factor solutions are evaluated, the data regularly resolve into identifiable sub-dimensions that mirror the specific communicative obstacles embedded in the items:

• Factor 1: Delivery & Boredom Tolerance (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; loadings: .58 to .78)
• Factor 2: Cognitive Preoccupation & Distraction Control (Items 11, 12, 13, 14; loadings: .52 to .74)
• Factor 3: Nonverbal Inexpressiveness Adaptation (Items 17, 18, 19, 20; loadings: .48 to .71)
• Factor 4: Structural & Clarity Accommodation (Items 15, 16, 23, 24; loadings: .46 to .69)
• Factor 5: Environmental & Ideological Receptivity (Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22; loadings: .44 to .67)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating a higher-order model (one secondary general factor overarching situational first-order factors) demonstrate adequate to excellent fit indices across standard structural thresholds:

• $\chi^2 / ext{df} le 2.14$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $= .93$ to $.95$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) $= .92$ to $.94$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) $= .048$ to $.056$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.041, .063]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) $= .045$

While contextual subscales provide nuanced diagnostic insight into specific listener sensitivities, the high inter-factor correlations ($r = .45$ to $.70$) strongly support computing the unidimensional composite score for overarching communicative profiling.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Willingness to Listen Measure (WTLM)
• Authors: Virginia P. Richmond, Ph.D., and Mark Hickson III, Ph.D.
• Publication Date: 2001
• Measurement Paradigm: Trait-based self-report psychometric rating scale
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults in instructional, organizational, clinical, or research settings
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital/computer-assisted survey
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes
• Total Item Count: 24 statements
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Item Valence Structure:
  • Positively Phrased Items (Direct Willingness): 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 23.
  • Negatively Phrased Items (Unwillingness / Barriers): 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 24.
• Scoring Mechanics and Algorithm:

  The published scoring algorithm utilizes a balanced linear inversion formula designed to yield a potential score range from 24 to 120:

  • Step 1: Sum raw ratings for positively phrased items: $\text{Sum}_1 = \text{Item } 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 + 9 + 12 + 14 + 16 + 17 + 19 + 21 + 23$.
  • Step 2: Sum raw ratings for negatively phrased items: $\text{Sum}_2 = \text{Item } 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 10 + 11 + 13 + 15 + 18 + 20 + 22 + 24$.
  • Step 3: Compute the composite score using the published formula: $$\text{Total Score} = 72 – \text{Sum}_1 + \text{Sum}_2$$

  Psychometric Scoring Clarification: In standard psychometric convention, higher aggregate scores are intended to reflect higher willingness. Notice that in the literal historical formula published by the authors ($72 – \text{Sum}_1 + \text{Sum}_2$), endorsees who “Strongly Agree” with positive listening items have those scores subtracted, whereas endorsements of unwillingness items are added. If using this literal historical formula, high values paradoxically represent higher reported listening resistance unless negative items are interpreted in reverse, or unless using the standard corrected linear transformation where Step 1 and Step 2 positions are inverted: $\text{Adjusted Total} = 72 + \text{Sum}_1 – \text{Sum}_2$. When applying the original norms, practitioners should verify that higher willingness corresponds to positive values.

• Normative Score Interpretation:
  • > 89: High Willingness to Listen (Demonstrates persistent attention, cognitive discipline, and resilience against external and internal distractions).
  • 59 – 89: Moderate Willingness to Listen (Reflects typical listening orientation; listener engages well under favorable circumstances but becomes susceptible to distraction when content is dry or delivery is disorganized).
  • < 59: Low Willingness to Listen (Reflects high vulnerability to cognitive disengagement, avoidance of effortful processing, and a strong tendency to blame speaker shortcomings for inattention).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Willingness to Listen Measure was developed and published in 2001 by Virginia P. Richmond and Mark Hickson III. Following the tradition of instruments developed within the McCroskey-Richmond instructional and interpersonal communication research network, the WTLM was placed in the public domain for non-profit educational, clinical, and scholarly research purposes.

No licensing fees or formal permissions are required for individual scholars, university faculty, or students utilizing the scale for non-commercial investigations, provided that appropriate academic attribution and citation are maintained. The instrument remains accessible via academic repositories and communication instrument archives originating from West Virginia University (James C. McCroskey Measures Archive). Commercial entities, executive coaching firms, or developers seeking to incorporate the WTLM into proprietary assessment platforms or fee-based training curricula should consult the original authors or copyright assignees (Pearson / Allyn & Bacon) regarding commercial licensing agreements.

References

• Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.583495
• Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528109378460
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–156). SAGE Publications.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
• Richmond, V. P., & Hickson, M. III. (2001). Going public: A practical guide to public talk. Allyn & Bacon.
• Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. E. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of test-retest reliability and construct validity. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370170
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
• Wheeless, L. R. (1975). An investigation of receiver apprehension and related communication variables. Human Communication Research, 1(3), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00275.x

Items of the Scale