Relational Communication Scale
Burgoon and Hale (1984) conceptualized relational communication as the verbal and nonverbal themes
present in people's communication that define an interpersonal relationship. Based on a thorough analysis and
synthesis of the literature, 12 relational communication dimensions were derived: Dominance-Submission,
Intimacy, Affection-Hostility, Intensity of Involvement, Inclusion-Exclusion, Trust, Depth-Superficiality,
Emotional Arousal, Composure, Similarity, Formality, and Task-Social Orientation.
To develop the Relational Communication Scale (RCS), Burgoon and Hale (1987) first canvassed related
measures and constructed 32 items that reflected the relational topoi. Next, Burgoon and Hale generated a few
possible factor solutions for the 12 dimensions of relational communication; they ranged from a 4-factor
orthogonal (20-item) solution accounting for 51 % of the variance to a 10-factor oblique (60-item) solution
accounting for 57% of the variance. They recommended using an 8-factor solution, and, depending on one's
measurement objectives, the 4-factor orthogonal solution might be preferable.
The eight factors (and a sample item for each) are: Immediacy/Affection ("Person A was highly involved in
the conversation"), Similarity/Depth ("A didn't care what B thinks"), Receptivity/Trust ("A wanted B to trust
him/her"), Composure ("A was calm and poised with B"), Formality ("A made the interaction very formal"),
Dominance ("A was dominating the conversation"), Equality ("A didn't treat B as an equal"), and Task
Orientation ("A wanted to stick to the main purpose of the interaction"). This solution best captured "the
relational meanings that are imbedded in all communication interchanges" (Burgoon & Hale, 1987, p. 40).
Although primarily designed as a self-report measure, the RCS may also be used as an other-report (e.g.,
Burgoon, Olney, & Coker, 1987) and observer-report measure (Burgoon & Newton, 1991). The original scale
contained 64 Likert items that range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Generally this scale has
been used in dyadic relationships; however, the RCS is versatile and can be adapted for use in interpersonal,
family, health care, and mass communication settings. It takes respondents about 10 minutes to complete.
RELIABILITY
Employing different versions of the RCS, Burgoon and Hale (1987) reported coefficient alphas for the eight
dimensions that range from .42 to .88. Other researchers, using different versions of the scale, reported similar
results (Buller, LePoire, Aune, & Eloy, 1992; Kelley & Burgoon, 1991).
VALIDITY
Burgoon and Hale (1987) reported several validity studies for the different RCS versions. For example, in a
series of criterion-related validity studies, they asked respondents to discuss a social or moral problem with a
friend and a stranger. In each pair, one respondent secretly served as a confederate. In a third of the
conditions, the confederate increased nonverbal immediacy, in another third, the confederate reduced
nonverbal immediacy, and the remaining third was instructed to act as naturally as possible. Respondents
completed the 32-item instrument (as well as the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension and the
Unwillingness-to-Communicate Scale) as it pertained to the recently completed interaction.
The results indicated that the RCS is capable of discriminating: "(1) immediate from nonimmediate behaviors,
(2) high from low gaze levels, (3) pleasant from hostile voices, (4) high from low reward communicators, (5)
male from female communicators, (6) dimensions of credibility, and (7) dimensions of personality" (Burgoon
& Hale, 1987, p. 40). Burgoon and associates have elaborated on many of these findings in subsequent
research (e.g., Buller & Aune, 1988; Buller & Burgoon, 1986; Burgoon, Coker, & Coker, 1986; Burgoon &
Hale, 1988; Burgoon, Olney, & Coker, 1987; Burgoon, Newton, Walther, & Baesler, 1989; Burgoon, Pfau,
Birk, & Manusov, 1987; Burgoon, Walther, & Baesler, 1992).
The RCS has utility beyond dyadic contexts. For example, Burgoon, Pfau, Parrott, et al. (1987), interested in
the communication between physicians and patients, reported that increases in receptivity, immediacy,
composure, similarity, formality, and less dominance by the physician were responsible for greater patient
satisfaction. In an attempt to interface personal and mediated communication, Pfau (1990) concluded that
"relational messages account for more influence than content messages in both television and interpersonal
communication, whereas content messages are responsible for more influence than relational messages in
print, radio, and public address" (p. 204). Furthermore, Walther and Burgoon (1992) reported that computermediated groups mirror face-co-face groups in that both experience an increase in relational communication
over time. These studies contributed to the construct validity of the RCS.
COMMENTS
The RCS appears to be a valid measure as evidenced by the vast amount of validity research conducted.
Although some of the dimensions initially had more variable or lower reliabilities, they improved in later
investigations. Future research should investigate the test-retest reliability of the RCS.
LOCATION
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. 1. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational
communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.
REFERENCES
Buller, D. B, & Aune, R. K. (1988). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compliance: A
speech accommodation theory explanation. Human Communication Research, 14, 301-332.
Buller, D. B, & Burgoon,). K. (1986). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compliance: A
replication and extension. Human Communication Research, 13, 126-144.
Buller, D. B., LePoire, B. A., Aune, R. K., & Eloy, S. V. (1992). Social perceptions as mediators of the effect
of speech rate similarity on compliance. Human Communication Research, 19,286-311.
Burgoon,). K., & Coker, D. A., & Coker, R. A. (1986). Communicative effects of gaze behavior: A test of
two contrasting explanations. Human Communication Research, 12,495-524.
Burgoon,). K., & Hale,). 1. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication
Monographs, 51,193-214.
Burgoon,). K., & Hale,). 1. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to
immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.
Burgoon,). K., & Newton, D. A. (1991). Applying a social meaning model to relational message
interpretations of conversational involvement: Comparing observer and participant perspectives. Southern
Communication Journal, 56, 96-113.
Burgoon,). K., Newton, D. A., Walther,). B., & Baesler, E.). (1989). Nonverbal Relational Communication
Scale expectancy violations and conversational involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13,97-119.
Burgoon,]. K, Olney, C. A., & Coker, R. A. (1987). The effects of communicator characteristics on patterns
of reciprocity and compensation, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 146-165.
Burgoon,]. K., Pfau, M., Birk, T., & Manusov, V. (1987). Nonverbal communication performance and
perceptions associated with reticence: Replications and classroom implications. Communication Education,
36, 119-130.
Burgoon,]. K., Pfau, M., Parrott, R., Birk, T, Coker, R., & Burgoon, M. 0987). Relational communication,
satisfaction, compliance-gaining strategies, and compliance in communication between physicians and
patients. Communication Monographs, 54, 307-324.
Burgoon,]. K, Walther,]. B., & Baesler, E.]. 0992). Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of
interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19, 237-263.
Kelley, D. 1., & Burgoon,]. K 0991). Understanding marital satisfaction and couple type as functions of
relational expectations. Human Communication Research, 18,40-69.
Pfau, M. 0990). A channel approach to television influence. Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media, 34, 195-214.
Walther,]. B., & Burgoon,]. K (1992). Relational communication in computer
mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Relational Communication Scale
Instructions: Below is a series of statements about the conversation you just completed with your partner. For
each one, please circle a number from 1 to 7, depending on the degree to which you agree or disagree with the
statement. A 7 means you strongly agree, a 6 means you agree, a 5 means you agree somewhat, a 4 means you
are neutral or unsure, a 3 means you disagree somewhat, a 2 means you disagree, and a 1 means you strongly
disagree. You may circle 1,2,3,4,5,6, or 7. Please complete all items.
[Editors' note: The items listed below represent the eight dimensions recommended by the scale authors; they
advocate choosing at least four items per dimension (when possible) from the following pool of items to
reflect the dimensions one desires to measure and the length of measure desired.}
*Copyright 1987 by the Speech Communication Association. Reprinted by permission.
Immediacy/Affection (Intimacy I)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. He/she was intensely involved in our conversation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. He/she did not want a deeper relationship between us.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. He/she was not attracted to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. He/she found the conversation stimulating.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. He/she communicated coldness rather than warmth.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. He/she created a sense of distance between us.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. He/she acted bored by our conversation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. He/she was interested in talking to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. He/she showed enthusiasm while talking to me.
Similarity/Depth (Intimacy II)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. He/she made me feel he/she was similar to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. He/she tried to move the conversation to a deeper level.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. He/she acted like we were good friends.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. He/she seemed to desire further communication with me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. He/she seemed to care if I liked him/her.
Receptivity/Trust (Intimacy III)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. He/she was sincere.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. He/she was interested in talking with me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. He/she wanted me to trust him/her.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. He/she was willing to listen to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. He/she was open to my ideas.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. He/she was honest in communicating with me.
Composure
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
He/she felt very tense talking to me.
He/she was calm and poised with me.
He/she felt very relaxed talking with me.
He/she seemed nervous in my presence.
He/she was comfortable interacting with me.
Formality
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. He/she made the interaction very formal.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. He/she wanted the discussion to be casual.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. He/she wanted the discussion to be informal.
Dominance
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
1234567
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
He/she attempted to persuade me.
He/she didn't attempt to influence me.
He/she tried to control the interaction.
He/she tried to gain my approval.
He/she didn't try to win my favor.
He/she had the upper hand in the conversation.
Equality
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. He/she considered us equals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. He/she did not treat me as an equal.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. He/she wanted to cooperate with me.
Task Orientation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41.
conversation.
He/she wanted to stick to the main purpose of the interaction.
He/she was more interested in social conversation than the task at hand.
He/she was very work-oriented.
He/she was more interested in working on the task at hand than having social
Note. Items should be arranged randomly before administration.
Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33, 36, and 39 should be reverse-coded
prior to scoring.