See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232999554
Assessing Gibb's Supportive and Defensive Communication
Climate: An Examination of Measurement and Construct
Validity
Article in Communication Research Reports · February 2011
DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2011.541360
CITATIONS
READS
12
2,554
3 authors:
G. L. Forward
Kathleen Czech
Point Loma Nazarene University
San Diego State University
8 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS
5 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Carmen Lee
University of Southern California
4 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Thesis on healthy eating View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kathleen Czech on 07 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Communication Research Reports
Vol. 28, No. 1, January–March 2011, pp. 1–15
Assessing Gibb’s Supportive and
Defensive Communication Climate:
An Examination of Measurement
and Construct Validity
G. L. Forward, Kathleen Czech, & Carmen M. Lee
This project investigated the utility of Gibb’s (1961) theory of supportive and defensive
communication as operationalized by Costigan and Schmeidler (1984) in their survey
instrument. As part of a larger project, 202 randomly selected faculty members completed
a survey assessing the supportive and defensive communication behaviors of their current
department chair. These data were then examined to determine the internal reliability
and consistency of the instrument, as well as underlying dimensional stability. The
results of this analysis indicate the presence of significant multicollinearity and a
4-factor, rather than a 12-factor, solution as originally hypothesized by Gibb. The article
concludes with suggestions for reconceptualizing and interpreting the communication
climate construct as a function of two underlying dimensions, including one supportive
and one defensive behavior focused on task and one supportive and one defensive
behavior focused on interpersonal relationships.
Keywords: Communication Climate; Defensive Communication; Measurement;
Supportive Communication; Validity
G. L. Forward (PhD, The Ohio State University, 1994) is a professor in the Department of Communication and
Theatre at Point Loma Nazarene University. Kathleen Czech (EdD, University of San Diego, 2007) is a professor
in the Department of Communication and Theatre at Point Loma Nazarene University. Carmen M. Lee (PhD,
University of California–Santa Barbara, 2007) is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at
San Diego State University. The dataset utilized in this project was part of Kathleen Czech’s dissertation. An
earlier version of this manuscript was presented to the Group Communication Division at the National
Communication Association Convention, November 22, 2008, San Diego, CA. Correspondence: G. L. Forward,
Department of Communication and Theatre, Point Loma Nazarene University, 3900 Lomaland Dr., San Diego,
CA 92106; E-mail: glforward@pointloma.edu
ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) # 2011 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2011.541360
2
G. L. Forward et al.
Gibb’s (1961) summary of his long-term observations about small group interaction
has achieved iconic status. Despite the fact that Gibb’s eight-page, 1961 Journal of
Communication article does not have a single citation, his theory of supportive
and defensive communication is both ubiquitous and enduring. The supportive–
defensive communication construct has been applied to the study of persuasion
(Eadie, 1982; Winer & Majors, 1981), family therapy (Kingstone & Endler, 1997),
education (Myers 1995; Myers & Rocca, 2001), cultural diversity (Schauber, 2001),
and organizational effectiveness (Cross, 1978; Larsen & Folgero, 1993). In addition,
the theory remains popular with communication textbook authors, despite minimal
empirical research supporting the construct as originally explicated by Gibb. Nearly
50 years after its initial introduction, many small group, interpersonal, and communication theory texts mention some or all of Gibb’s notions about supportive
and defensive communication as it relates to communication climate.
In this article, we briefly summarize Gibb’s (1961) theory and define the 12 categories of supportive and defensive communication behaviors that he described. The
specific contribution of this article, however, is the empirical examination of the
reliability and underlying dimensionality of the supportive–defensive communication
construct, as operationalized by Costigan and Schmeidler (1984). Finally, we critique
Gibb’s theory based on our empirical findings and suggest two underlying dimensions that more elegantly and accurately capture the global dynamics inherent in
Gibb’s theory while retaining the utility of many of the specific communication
behaviors in the original model.
Literature Review
Jack Gibb (1961) was one of the first scholars to attempt to identify specific
communication behaviors that contributed to the development of an overarching
communication climate. In an eight-year study of small, task-oriented groups, Gibb
identified specific communication patterns that tended to increase or decrease
defensiveness between people. These communication patterns are represented in
most contemporary small-group communication texts.
Defensive Versus Supportive Communication
A defensive communication climate is one in which an individual feels threatened or
anxious when in communication with others (Gibb, 1961). A defensive conversation
may appear normal outwardly while inwardly the person is investing considerable
mental energy in defending him or herself. According to Gibb, as a person becomes
more defensive, they become less able to accurately perceive the motives, values, and
emotions of the sender. Major themes in a defensive communication climate include
critical, judgmental attitudes that overshadow working conditions, inflexibility and
dogmatism, autocratic management, manipulation, little personal support, and
pervasive feelings of inadequacy (Myers & Rocca, 2001).
Conversely, major communication themes in supportive environments foreground encouragement and understanding. Supportive communication is clear and
Communication Research Reports
3
accurate with information that is freely shared. Member opinions are accepted, and
individuals are encouraged to achieve their goals. Most importantly, accusation and
blame are minimized. Supportive communication that is accepting, nonjudgmental,
empathic, and does not make assumptions about the other person’s motives is a
necessary part of interpersonal effectiveness (Myers & Rocca, 2001).
Behavioral Categories
Gibb (1961) delineated 12 categories of behaviors that tend to create either a supportive or defensive communication climate. The categories are arrayed in six pairs
linking one supportive behavior with its’ conceptual opposite defensive behavior.
These six pairs of climate factors are contrasted in specific communication behaviors
explicated in the following (see Table 1).
Evaluation versus description. Evaluation consists of communication behaviors
that engage in judgmental and accusatory language. Evaluation is often marked by
‘‘you language’’ that places blame on the other person. Communication that is
descriptive, in contrast, tends to arouse a minimum of uneasiness. Language in which
the listener perceives a need for information and a genuine desire to understand
another’s view is descriptive. Descriptive communication is marked by the use of
‘‘I language’’ that places responsibility on the sender of the message (Gibb, 1961).
Control versus problem orientation. Language that is used to control the listener
evokes defensiveness. Control is often marked by implicit attempts to be manipulative. The speaker may view the listener as ignorant, uniformed, unwise, or possessing
of inappropriate attitudes. Problem orientation, however, uses language that is not
overtly persuasive or controlling, but rather focuses on a desire for collaboration.
The sender utilizes language that seeks a mutual definition of the problem. The
speaker thus implies that there is no predetermined solution, attitude, or method
to impose and they are open to finding the best solution (Gibb, 1961).
Strategy versus spontaneity. Strategy is a communication behavior that implies
hidden motives and deceit. When a sender is perceived as engaging in strategic communication involving ambiguous and multiple motivations, the receiver becomes
Table 1 Behavioral Characteristics of Supportive and Defensive
Communication Climates
Defensive climates
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Evaluation (EVL)
Control (CON)
Strategy (STR)
Neutrality (NEU)
Superiority (SUP)
Certainty (CER)
Supportive climates
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Description (DES)
Problem Orientation (PRB)
Spontaneity (SPO)
Empathy (EMP)
Equality (EQU)
Provisionalism (PRV)
4
G. L. Forward et al.
defensive. Gibb (1961) suggested that the antidote is communication that is spontaneous. Spontaneity is defined as straightforwardness, directness, and honesty.
Spontaneity consists of communication that is consistent, genuine, and transparent
(Rothwell, 2007).
Neutrality versus empathy. Neutrality in speech occurs when a speaker indicates a
lack of concern for the welfare of the listener. Most people desire to be valued as persons and to be seen worthy of concern and affection. Communication that exhibits low
affect and little warmth or caring is often seen as rejection (Gibb, 1961). This indifference is countered with empathy. Empathy is thinking and feeling what you perceive
another to be thinking and feeling (Rothwell, 2007). Communication that conveys
empathy contains messages that indicate that the speaker indentifies with the listener’s
problems, shares their feelings, and accepts emotional reactions at face value.
Superiority versus equality. When a person communicates to another that they feel
superior by virtue of a position, power, wealth, intellectual ability, or physical characteristics, they arouse defensiveness. A receiver of this type of communication is
likely to react by not hearing the message, forgetting, competing with the sender,
or by becoming jealous of them (Gibb, 1961). Equality recognizes that whatever
the differences in our abilities, talents, or intellect, that in order to produce encouragement and productivity, one should treat people with respect and politeness and as
equals (Rothwell, 2007).
Certainty versus provisionalism. Certainty is defined as dogmatic, single-minded
behavior combined with an unwillingness to compromise. The dogmatic individual
is seen as needing to be right and wanting to win the argument rather than solve the
problem. Provisionalsim reduces defensiveness by allowing a provisional attitude, a
willingness to investigate issues rather than taking sides, and demonstrating openness
to new possibilities (Gibb, 1961).
Summary
Although Gibb’s (1961) theory of supportive and defensive communication is enduring, ubiquitous, and conceptually appealing, it has received little elaboration or
empirical support, despite its iconic status. In large measure, the paucity of empirical
data is due to the fact that Gibb himself never published a survey instrument that
would enable other researchers to explore, verify, or refine his theory. In an effort
to address this reality, we intend to provide additional information concerning the
internal consistency and dimensionality of the Costigan and Schmeidler (1984)
operationalization of Gibb’s 12 supportive and defensive communication behaviors.
Method
Participants
The participants in this study (N ¼ 202) were randomly selected faculty members
who teach at institutions affiliated with the Council of Independent Colleges
Communication Research Reports
5
1
(CIC), headquartered in Washington, DC. The sample was solicited as part of a
larger research project evaluating department chair leadership (Czech & Forward,
2010). After securing a CIC membership directory, we consulted a table of
random numbers to identify a starting point and selected every k ¼ 27th university
until we had a list of 26 schools. Each department in those schools was grouped into
one of four broad academic domains (humanities, professional studies, social
sciences, and physical sciences). One department from each group was randomly
selected; and all full-time faculty members, excluding the chair, were contacted by
mail and asked to evaluate their department chairs’ communication behaviors. This
procedure resulted in N ¼ 202 usable surveys evaluating 104 different department
chairs.
This represents a 48% response rate, which is generally acceptable for mailed
surveys (Dillman, 2000), and is especially robust given the many requests for assistance received by faculty members (Baruch, 1999). The 202 participants in this study
ranged in age from 27 to 82 years, with a mean age of 50.3 (SD ¼ 10.9). Fifty-three
percent (n ¼ 106) were women, and the sample was predominately White (83.2%;
n ¼ 168). These participants had been at their current institution for an average of
10.6 years (SD ¼ 9.5) and had been involved in higher education for 16.7 years
(SD ¼ 11.3) total.
Procedure and Instrumentation
The Communication Climate Inventory (CCI) operationalizes Gibb’s (1961) initial
12 factors assessing supportive and defensive communication behaviors within
organizational workgroups (Larsen & Folgero, 1993). Thirty-six questions are
presented in a Likert-type format scaled from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost
always) (see the Appendix). The original wording of each question was altered
to reflect the department chair and faculty member relationship as the specific
context of the interaction. The perceived level of supportive–defensive communication was assessed with questions like the following: ‘‘My chair treats me with
respect’’ (supportive), and ‘‘My chair criticizes my work in the presence of
others’’ (defensive).
The scores of the first 18 questions indicate the degree to which the faculty’s
relationship with their department chair reflects the six dimensions of a supportive
communication climate. The next 18 questions indicate the degree to which the
faculty’s relationship with their department chair reflects the six dimensions of a
defensive communication climate. The inventory can be used to measure an organization’s total communication environment or the climate of individual work relationships (Costigan & Schmeidler, 1984). In this study, we utilized the CCI to
assess the individual communication climate between a department chair and
individual faculty members.
Descriptive summaries including means, standard deviations, skewness, and
kurtosis for each item comprising Costigan and Schmeidler’s (1984) CCI are presented in Table 2. We assessed the normality of the data by examining skewness
6
G. L. Forward et al.
Table 2 Original Communication Climate Inventory (Means, Standard
Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis)
Item
Supportive climate items
DES 1
DES 2
DES 3
PRB 1
PRB 2
PRB 3
PRV 1
PRV 2
PRV 3
EMP 1
EMP 2
EMP 3
EQU 1
EQU 2
EQU 3
SPO 1
SPO 2
SPO 3
Defensive climate items
EVL 1
EVL 2
EVL 3
SUP 1
SUP 2
SUP 3
CER 1
CER 2
CER 3
NEU 1
NEU 2
NEU 3
CON 1
CON 2
CON 3
STR 1
STR 2
STR 3
M
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
3.90
3.95
3.73
4.01
4.41
4.02
4.43
4.41
4.08
3.89
4.18
4.09
4.40
4.17
4.36
3.94
4.12
4.15
1.09
1.10
1.09
0.98
1.04
1.01
0.88
0.89
1.01
1.15
1.06
1.09
1.00
1.12
1.07
1.15
1.11
1.10
0.87
0.82
0.70
0.88
1.98
1.15
1.76
1.70
1.02
0.96
1.50
1.39
1.82
1.47
1.86
0.95
1.29
1.39
0.13
0.39
0.33
0.03
3.27
0.86
2.84
2.74
0.33
0.10
1.83
1.49
2.63
1.39
2.73
0.05
0.85
1.15
1.53
2.58
1.47
1.40
2.39
1.85
1.85
1.73
1.86
3.87
2.77
3.82
2.16
1.71
2.26
1.92
2.18
1.61
0.91
1.19
0.88
0.88
1.25
0.99
1.06
1.06
1.13
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.05
0.94
1.16
1.21
1.20
0.98
2.03
0.24
2.17
2.61
0.55
1.31
1.28
1.48
1.36
0.87
0.00
0.78
0.63
1.65
0.70
1.31
0.84
1.84
3.94
0.99
4.47
6.62
0.71
1.43
1.00
1.40
1.04
0.23
0.67
0.29
0.46
2.79
0.48
0.67
0.29
3.00
Note. DES ¼ description; PRB ¼ problem orientation; PRV ¼ provisionalism; EMP ¼ empathy;
EQU ¼ equality; SPO ¼ spontaneity; EVL ¼ evaluation; SUP ¼ superiority; CER ¼ certainty;
NUE ¼ neutrality; CON ¼ control; STR ¼ strategy.
Communication Research Reports
7
and kurtosis (Kline, 2005). Results revealed that these data were not normally distributed. The normal range for skewness is between 1.00 and þ1.00; however, these
data were skewed with scores ranging from 1.98 to 2.61. In addition, the kurtosis
scores ranged from 0.99 to 6.62, with many scores outside of the normal range
(i.e., 3.00 to þ3.00). As a result, we performed log transformations of the skewed
data to approximate normal distributions. Table 3 presents the means, standard
deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of the CCI items after log transformation.
Results
Internal Consistency
We have included two estimates of internal consistency for each supportive and
defensive subscale. As can be seen in Table 4, the coefficient alphas for each subscale
are generally robust. Keyton (2001) suggested that an alpha of .70 is a generally
accepted standard for communication research. All of the communication subscales,
except neutrality (a ¼ .65), met or exceeded this standard. This initial assessment of
internal consistency suggests that the subscales might have utility as parsimonious,
stand-alone measures of these constructs.
Second, a correlation matrix was obtained to explore the possibility of collinearity
among the subscales (see Table 4). Monge (1980) suggested that Pearson rs > .70 may
be indicative of multicollinearity. Again, with the exception of neutrality, the resultant correlations are high across the board, and a great many exceed the suggested .70
standard, indicating that the variables may be too closely related and that some items
may essentially be measuring the same things.
To further test for this possibility, we ran an additional procedure that provides
tolerance and variation inflation factor (VIF) diagnostics. Tolerance values significantly below 1 indicate collinearly, whereas values close to 1 indicate little or no overlap between the variables assessed. Likewise, VIF values of 1 indicate little or no
association between the variables, whereas VIF values >2 reveal unacceptably high
correlations (Blaikie, 2003). The diagnostics in Table 5 suggest that there is a significant problem of multicollinearity among the variables in this dataset. We explore
these findings in more detail through factor analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the CCI
Subsequent to data transformation, we submitted the 36-items of the CCI to a
second-order CFA using Amos 16.0 (Arbuckle, 2004). We used maximum likelihood
estimation to test the 12-factor model. To assess the overall fit of this model, we
examined the following indexes: chi-square likelihood ratio (v2), the ratio of
chi-square to degrees of freedom (v2=df), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
The model would be deemed adequate if: (a) the CFI had a value of .90 or higher;
(b) the RMSEA had a value of .08 or lower; and (c) the ratio of v2=df had a value
8
G. L. Forward et al.
Table 3 Final Communication Climate Inventory (Means, Standard
Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis)
Item
Supportive climate items
DES 1
DES 2
DES 3
PRB 1
PRB 2
PRB 3
PRV 1
PRV 2
PRV 3
EMP 1
EMP 2
EMP 3
EQU 1
EQU 2
EQU 3
SPO 1
SPO 2
SPO 3
Defensive climate items
EVL 1
EVL 2
EVL 3
SUP 1
SUP 2
SUP 3
CER 1
CER 2
CER 3
NEU 1
NEU 2
NEU 3
CON 1
CON 2
CON 3
Str1
Str2
Str3
M
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
3.90
3.95
3.73
4.01
0.14
0.25
0.14
0.15
0.23
3.89
0.20
0.22
0.14
0.20
0.15
3.93
0.21
0.20
1.09
1.10
1.09
0.98
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.22
1.15
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.23
0.22
1.15
0.23
0.23
0.87
0.82
0.70
0.88
1.26
0.25
1.00
0.93
0.32
0.96
0.64
0.49
1.15
0.72
1.15
0.95
0.58
0.65
0.13
0.39
0.33
0.03
0.38
0.89
0.20
0.38
1.17
0.10
0.69
0.81
0.02
0.68
0.07
0.05
0.94
0.79
0.13
2.58
0.11
0.09
2.39
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.20
3.87
2.77
3.82
2.16
0.81
2.26
0.21
2.17
0.15
0.20
1.19
0.19
0.19
1.25
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.05
0.20
1.16
0.24
1.20
0.21
1.22
0.24
1.43
1.85
0.55
0.43
0.55
0.84
0.66
0.87
0.00
0.78
0.63
0.69
0.70
0.66
0.84
1.08
0.36
0.99
0.87
2.32
0.71
0.89
0.96
0.66
0.87
0.23
0.67
0.29
0.46
0.54
0.48
0.89
0.29
0.08
Note. DES ¼ description; PRB ¼ problem orientation; PRV ¼ provisionalism; EMP ¼
empathy; EQU ¼ equality; SPO ¼ spontaneity; EVL ¼ evaluation; SUP ¼ superiority;
CER ¼ certainty; NUE ¼ neutrality; CON ¼ control; STR ¼ strategy.
Communication Research Reports
9
Table 4 Correlation Matrix
Variable
1. Description
2. Problem orientation
3. Provisionalism
4. Empathy
5. Equality
6. Spontaneity
7. Superiority
8. Evaluation
9. Certainty
10. Neutrality
11. Control
12. Strategy
1
2
3
4
5
6
.87
.71
.62
.67
.67
.67
.56
.59
.71
.40
.66
.71
.77
.73
.84
.75
.75
.54
.63
.65
.64
.61
.74
.88
.79
.79
.74
.65
.70
.68
.44
.67
.73
.91
.85
.83
.61
.71
.70
.59
.63
.79
.91
.85
.74
.81
.70
.46
.73
.81
.93
.63
.73
.72
.49
.69
.86
7
8
9
10
11
12
.71
.73
.73
.75
.67
.90
.39 .40 .44
.65
.78
.68
.76 .45 .82
.69
.75
.78 .46 .76 .90
Note. N ¼ 202. All correlations are statistically significant at p < .01. The italicized values on the diagonal are the
Cronbach’s alphas’ for each subscale.
below 3 (see Kline, 2005; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; Quintana & Maxwell,
1999). The results of these calculations indicate that the proposed model does not
fit the data well, v2(581, N ¼ 202) ¼ 1,440.71, p < .001; v2=df ¼ 2.48, CFI ¼ .87,
RMSEA ¼ .09 (see Figure 1). Despite the inadequacy of the model, it should be noted
that all of the standardized path coefficients were significant, except for the NEU 2
Table 5 Collinearity Diagnostics for Communication Behaviors
Collinearity statistics
Communication behavior
Supportive
Description
Problem orientation
Provisionalism
Empathy
Equality
Spontaneity
Defensive
Superiority
Evaluation
Certainty
Neutrality
Control
Strategy
Tolerance
Variation inflation factor
.44
.25
.31
.16
.20
.22
2.30
4.10
3.22
6.37
5.02
4.61
.29
.35
.28
.74
.28
.27
3.48
2.89
3.60
1.35
3.57
3.78
10
G. L. Forward et al.
Figure 1
Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Original Communication Climate Inventory.
item (b ¼ 0.13, p ¼ .11). Each subscale and the items that are expected to load on
those subscales, according to Gibb (1961), are detailed in Figure 1.
Given the lack of fit of the original CCI data, we conducted a principal component analysis with promax rotation on the 36-items to assess dimensionality. The
analysis produced a highly satisfactory Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy (¼ .95) resulting in a five-factor solution accounting for 69.83% of the
total variance (see Table 6). However, the fifth factor contained only a single
neutrality (NEU 2) item. Since factors with a single loading should be considered
volatile and unreliable, we have excluded it from any additional analysis (Mertler
& Vannatta, 2005).
The remaining four factors have been labeled and arranged in a 2 2 matrix indicating the types of questions that loaded on each factor (see Table 7). The first factor,
which we called ‘‘collaboration,’’ involves how one interpersonally approaches others
and includes provisionalism, equality, spontaneity, and empathy. In addition, we
note that strategy, originally hypothesized by Gibb (1961) to be a disconfirming
behavior, has almost identical loadings on both of the positively valenced factors.
The second factor involving a combination of control, certainty, and superiority
was labeled ‘‘authoritarianism.’’ The third factor, which we labeled ‘‘descriptive
orientation,’’ explains how one approaches the issue under discussion and includes
all three description items and problem orientation. Again, several items have
cross-loadings that exceed .40 and complicate interpretation (see Table 6). The last
factor, which involves a combination of neutrality and interpersonal indifference,
we labeled ‘‘manipulation.’’
Communication Research Reports
11
Table 6 Final Communication Climate Inventory Factor Structure
Variable
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
EQU 3
EMP 2
EQU 1
SPO 3
SPO 1
PRB 2
STR 3
EMP 3
SPO 2
PRV 1
SUP 1
EVL 3
PRV 2
EQU 2
STR 2
STR 1
EMP 1
EVL 1
PRV 3
CER 3
CON 3
SUP 3
CER 2
SUP 2
CON 2
CON 1
EVL 2
DES 3
DES 1
DES 2
PRB 1
CER 1
NEU 1
NEU 3
PRB 3
NUE 2
.877
.876
.874
.861
.838
.838
.834
.832
.824
.821
.819
.814
.791
.786
.769
.768
.723
.715
.694
.660
.538
.487
.679
.501
.722
.618
.345
.616
.530
.703
.670
.639
.409
.450
.517
.176
.511
.515
.520
.510
.613
.467
.594
.482
.473
.522
.535
.532
.557
.617
.602
.683
.364
.625
.529
.826
.824
.790
.751
.733
.723
.703
.660
.471
.447
.565
.558
.712
.392
.309
.145
.238
.601
.703
.586
.634
.697
.594
.709
.658
.647
.529
.673
.644
.473
.563
.716
.763
.619
.447
.584
.693
.525
.488
.723
.259
.599
.701
.379
.904
.839
.787
.787
.738
.350
.397
.559
.167
.553
.685
.445
.562
.529
.657
.453
.719
.549
.450
.359
.376
.391
.455
.581
.447
.713
.381
.581
.489
.356
.270
.478
.196
.435
.408
.266
.452
.391
.447
.610
.507
.804
.767
.728
.042
.021
.079
.051
.016
.036
.082
.040
.101
.035
.195
.155
.160
.264
.026
.005
.039
.232
.031
.338
.106
.019
.044
.141
.035
.111
.006
.167
.042
.060
.059
.085
.085
.050
.115
.033
.842
Note. Values in bold font represent primary factor loadings. DES ¼ description; PRB ¼ problem orientation;
PRV ¼ provisionalism; EMP ¼ empathy; EQU ¼ equality; SPO ¼ spontaneity; EVL ¼ evaluation; SUP ¼
superiority; CER ¼ certainty; NUE ¼ neutrality; CON ¼ control; STR ¼ strategy.
12
G. L. Forward et al.
Table 7 Underlying Dimensions of Supportive and Defensive Communication Climates
Orientation
Task
People
Supportive
Collaboration including provisionalism,
equality, spontaneity, and empathy
Descriptive including description and
problem orientation
Defensive
Authoritarian including control,
certainty, and superiority
Manipulation including strategy and
neutrality
Discussion
Gibb’s (1961) theory of supportive and defensive communication has endured
because it is relatively parsimonious, intuitively appealing, and generally consistent
with the personal experiences of many. It is clear, however, that the construct as
currently articulated and measured would benefit from additional investigation.
Our analysis of the Costigan and Schmeidler (1984) operationalization suggests the
following issues that need to be addressed.
Dimensionality
The empirical evidence seems not to support the notion of 12 discrete communication behaviors. Examination of the correlation matrix reveals high levels of collinearity, suggesting that some of the variables may essentially be measuring the same
thing. Further, examination of the CFA suggests that supportive and defensive
communication can each be better explained by examining the two underlying
dynamics. Table 7 illustrates these dynamics.
These underlying dimensions of supportive and defensive communication are
congruent with earlier studies that concluded leadership can best be understood by
evaluating one’s orientation toward people and orientation toward task (Hackman
& Johnson, 2009). The factors extracted in this study advance that assertion by suggesting that orientation toward people exists on a continuum from collaboration to
manipulation. In addition, orientation toward the task exists on a continuum from
descriptive to authoritative. The specific communication behaviors that contribute
to these four components were identified in the results section and can be further
explored by looking at the individual questions and CFA (see the Appendix and
Figure 1).
Conclusion
We contend that the notion of supportive and defensive communication is a powerful and useful one. Nonetheless, the empirical evidence presented here suggests
potential problems with the underlying dimensionality of the primary instrument
created to reflect the 12 behaviors originally hypothesized by Gibb (1961; see also
Costigan & Schmeidler, 1984). However, rather than rejecting Gibb, we believe a
reconceptualized model and subsequent instrument development could be useful
Communication Research Reports
13
and worthwhile. A newly refined instrument should capitalize on a more nuanced
understanding of the two underlying dimensions of communication climate as
suggested in Table 7. The strength of the current measurement tool is in identifying
specific behaviors that contribute to the two supportive (collaboration and description) and two defensive (manipulation and authoritarianism) communication
climate dimensions.
Finally, we urge caution in interpreting these results due to the unique nature of
our sample. As full-time faculty members, our respondents are not representative of
all types of employers or jobs and may not be representative of faculty in
state-supported schools. Future research should endeavor to replicate these findings
with other populations in other organizational contexts. In addition, researchers
could begin their work with the proposed conceptual framework and refine a
measurement tool that captures these global dynamics while simultaneously
identifying specific behaviors that contribute to these interpersonal relational
impressions.
Note
[1]
Educational researchers have suggested that private and public universities may differ in
significant ways due to governmental oversight and funding (Forward, Czech, & Allen,
2007). To control for this potentially confounding variable, we limited our sample to faculty
at private, 4-year universities comprising the 544 member institutions belonging to the
Council of Independent Colleges.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2004). Amos 16.0. Chicago: SPSS.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52,
421–438.
Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing quantitative data. London, England: Sage.
Costigan, J. L., & Schmeidler, M. A. (1984). Exploring supportive and defensive communication
climates. In J. W. Pfeiffer & L. D. Goodstein (Eds.), The 1984 handbook for group facilitators
(pp. 112–114). San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Cross, G. (1978). How to overcome defensive communication. Personnel Journal, 3, 441–456.
Czech, K., & Forward, G. L. (2010). Leader communication: Faculty perceptions of the department
chair. Communication Quarterly, 58, 431–457.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Eadie, W. F. (1982). Defensive communication revisited: A critical examination of Gibb’s theory.
Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 163–177.
Forward, G. L., Czech, K., & Allen, P. A. (2007). Leadership, communication and religiosity in
higher education administration: Distinctions that make a difference. Journal of Communication and Religion, 30, 153–185.
Gibb, J. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11, 141–148.
Hackman, M., & Johnson, C. (2009). Leadership: A communication perspective (5th ed.). Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
14
G. L. Forward et al.
Keyton, J. (2001). Communication research: Asking questions, finding answers. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Kingstone, J. C., & Endler, N. S. (1997). Supportive vs. defensive communications in depression: An
assessment of Coynes model. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 29, 44–53.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Larsen, S., & Folgero, I. S. (1993). Supportive and defensive communication. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5(3), 22–25.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. W., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory
factor analysis: Effects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–411.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical
application and interpretation. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.
Monge, P. R. (1980). Multivariate multiple regression. In P. R. Monge & C. N. Capella (Eds.),
Multivariate techniques in human communication research (pp. 13–56). New York, NY:
Academic.
Myers, S. (1995). Student perceptions of teacher affinity-seeking and classroom climate.
Communication Research Reports, 12, 192–199.
Myers, S., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness
in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate, apprehension, and state
motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 113–137.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in structural
equation modeling for counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527.
Rothwell, J. D. (2007). In mixed company: Small group communication (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Schauber, A. (2001). Effecting extension organizational change toward cultural diversity: A
conceptual framework. Journal of Extension, 39(3), 1–7.
Winer, S., & Majors, R. E. (1981). A research note on supportive and defensive communication: An
empirical study of three verbal interpersonal communication variables. Communication
Quarterly, 29, 166–172.
Appendix
Exploring Supportive and Defensive Communication Climates
DES 1 My chair tries to describe situation fairly without labeling them as good
or bad.
DES 2 My chair presents his or her feelings and perceptions without implying that a
similar response is expected from me.
DES 3 My chair attempts to explain situations clearly and without personal bias.
PRB 1 My chair defines problems so that they can be understood but does not insist
that others agree.
PRB 2 I feel free to talk to my chair.
PRB 3 My chair defines problems and makes his or her faculty aware of them.
PRV 1 My chair allows me as much creativity as possible in my job.
PRV 2 My chair allows flexibility on the job.
PRV 3 My chair is willing to try new ideas and to accept other points of view.
EMP 1 My chair understands the problems that I encounter in my job.
EMP 2 My chair respects my feelings and values.
EMP 3 My chair listens to my problems with interest.
Communication Research Reports
15
EQU 1 My chair does not try to make me feel inferior.
EQU 2 My chair participates in meetings with faculty without projecting his or her
higher status or power.
EQU 3 My chair treats me with respect.
SPO 1 My chair does not have hidden motives in dealing with me.
SPO 2 I feel that I can be honest and straightforward with my chair.
SPO 3 I feel that I can express my opinions and ideas honestly to my chair.
EVL 1 My chair criticizes my work without allowing me to explain.
EVL 2 My chair judges the actions of his or her faculty members.
EVL 3 My chair criticizes my work in the presence of others.
SUP 1 My chair tries to make me feel inadequate.
SUP 2 My chair makes it clear that he or she is in chair
SUP 3 My chair believes that if a job is to be done right, he or she must oversee it or
do it.
CER 1 My chair cannot admit that he or she makes mistakes.
CER 2 My chair is dogmatic; it is useless for me to voice an opposing point of view
CER 3 My chair thinks that he or she is always right.
NEU 1 My chair is not interested in faculty personal problems.
NEU 2 My chair becomes involved in faculty conflicts.
NEU 3 My chair offers moral support during a personal crisis.
CON 1 My chair tries to change other people’s attitudes and behaviors to suit his or
her own.
CON 2 My chair believes that he or she must control how I do my work.
CON 3 My chair needs to be in charge of the situation.
STR 1 My chair tries to manipulate faculty to get what he or she wants or to make
himself or herself look good.
STR 2 I have to be careful when talking to my chair so that I will not be
misinterpreted.
STR 3 My chair twists and distorts what I say when I speak what is really on my
mind.
Note. DES ¼ description; PRB ¼ problem orientation; PRV ¼ provisionalism; EMP ¼
empathy; EQU ¼ equality; SPO ¼ spontaneity; EVL ¼ evaluation; SUP ¼ superiority;
CER ¼ certainty; NEU ¼ neutrality; CON ¼ control; STR ¼ strategy.
Copyright of Communication Research Reports is the property of Eastern Communication Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
View publication stats