SPEECH 203:

AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY ON THE CORRELATION OF STUDENTS’

DEGREE OF WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN AND SOCIO-COMMUNICATIVE

ORIENTATION

Submitted by:

Christa Angela Mananquil

04-63049

Submitted on:

April 6, 2010

Submitted to:

Dr. Belen Calingacion

 AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY ON THE CORRELATION OF STUDENTS’

DEGREE OF WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN AND SOCIO-COMMUNICATIVE

ORIENTATION

This research paper aims to find out Communications 3 students’ degree of

willingness to listen to speakers in general and correlate findings with their socio-

communicative orientation. The researcher used the measure provided by Dr. James

Mc Croskey in his web page (http://www.jamescmccroskey.com). Tests of difference

and correlation were used to meet the objectives of this paper and to prove the

research’s hypotheses. Results of test suggest that there is no significant correlation

between the degree of willingness to listen and socio-communicative orientation.

With such result, it is rightfully suggested that future researches focus on specific

groups of respondents to try and find correlations.

Research Problem

How are Comm 3 students’ socio-communicative orientation correlated with their

degree of their willingness to listen?

Research Objectives

1. To determine Comm 3 students’ level of willingness to listen to speakers in

general

2. To know Comm 3 students’ socio-communicative orientation using

McCroskey’s measure
 3. To ascertain the correlation between students’ level of willingness to listen and

the level of their socio-communicative orientation.

Hypotheses

1. Comm 3 students are highly willing to listen to speakers in general.

2. There is a significant difference in Comm 3 students’ socio-communicative

orientation

3. There is a significant correlation between the students’ willingness to listen

and their socio-communicative orientation.

Significance of the study

This study is directed to contribute as a guide to public speakers so they may

develop understanding towards listeners’ behavior as resulted by their socio-

communicative orientation. As speakers, we take conscious efforts to prepare our

speeches so it would reach our audience in a way that they will be informed,

conciliated, or moved depending on our goals. In doing so, we must consider the

listening and response orientation of our audience so we would know how to

effectively communicate with them.

This study also goes out to people who are constantly exposed to active listening

environment, that they may develop a sense of understanding of their own attitude

and behavior towards listening events. As they become conscious of their capacity
for listening, as well as their socio-communicative orientation, they may be able to

develop better strategies for effective and critical listening.

On top of everything, this study aims to contribute to the limited researches on

listening. The researcher would like to inspire other scholars and researchers to

explore the field of listening so it receives apt and deserving attention as an integral

part of the communication process.

Limitation and Delimitation

This research paper aims to explore speech communication (Comm 3) students’

degree of willingness to listen and relate it to their socio-communicative orientation.

Feedback from respondents was gathered through questionnaires, which was

distributed and collected by the researcher to UP Diliman students. It was limited to

the two Comm 3 classes of Mr. Carlo de Pano of the Department of Speech

Communication and Theater Arts, College of Arts and Letters in UP Diliman. Due to

time constraints, follow up interview had not been made possible. Deep examination

of how and why listeners’ willingness and orientation differ was not included in this

study as the researcher was only interested in exploring the field and in investigating

its feasibility for a comprehensive and more thorough research.

 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Listening

Listening is a complex process that is always transactional and two-way. It is not just

passive, it is active. (Brownell, 2006). A person’s orientation towards a listening event

depends on the type of listening namely appreciative, informative, critical, and

emphatic. Each of the type of listening requires different levels of attention, focus,

sensitivity, and desired response/s.

This discipline received only little attention in the past, even its meaning is confused

with various processes of communication. Earlier definition of listening was

associated with a combination of cognitive functions such as attention,

comprehension, and memory. Eventually, in addition to cognitive functions, listening

was also associated with psychological and behavioral activities.

Finally, in 1994, listening received a new and comprehensive meaning as define by a

group of scholars in the International Listening Association (ILA): “Listening is the

process of receiving, attaching meaning from, and responding to spoken and/or

nonverbal messages” (Thompson, 2004).

Listening does not only concern the message and the speaker. Its effectiveness

recognizes listening attitudes and behaviors, as well as listening goals and

objectives. With this, listening also involves dynamic, interactive process of

integrating appropriate listening attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors to achieve

selected goals of listening event (Thompson, 2004).

Extemporaneous Speech

An extemporaneous speech is persuasive and informative type of speech, which

takes sufficient time for preparation prior to its actual delivery. There are four different

speaking events namely: informative, persuasive, domestic, and foreign.

Theoretical Framework

Socio-communicative Orientation

Socio-communicative orientation and style constitutes of three dimensions –

assertiveness, responsiveness, and versatility (Mc Croskey & Cole, 2000). Socio-

communicative orientation is different from socio-communicative style as the former

is more focused in a person’s perception of himself -- as to whether he has

responsive or assertive response style.

Assertiveness

Assertiveness exemplifies characteristics of independence, supremacy, and

forcefulness (Richmond & Martin, 1998). By and large, it is pronounced as one’s

ability to stand up for one’s position and beliefs. An assertive response is in contrast

with aggressiveness. Assertive listeners listen with critical ears while aggressive
ones are not listening effectively because they tend to block incoming information

because of their preoccupation of other opposing thoughts.

An assertive person is straightforward, objective, and open (Brownell, 2006). He/She

listens attentively and takes timely and appropriate response actions. An assertive

person does not aim to win any arguments, rather, he/she is focused on problem-

solving.

Types of Assertive Response (Brownell, 2006)

1. Broken Record consists of simply repeating your requests every time you are

met with illegitimate resistance.

2. Negative Inquiry is agreement with criticism without letting up demand.
3. Fogging consists of finding some limited truth to agree with in what an

antagonist is saying.
4. Workable Compromise refers to negotiation in times of disagreements.
5. Expressing Feelings Verbally is to name feelings clearly and make the feeling

part of the content of their messages.

Responsiveness

Responsiveness exemplifies characteristics of being warm, helpful, friendly, and

thoughtful of other people (Richmond & Martin, 1998). Sensitivity towards

communicating feelings with other people best describes responsiveness. It also

refers to the open, non-evaluative interaction that encourages objective analysis,

problem solving, and healthy relationships.

Willingness to listen

Students’ willingness to listen affects their attention span and degree of

attentiveness. Their willingness may depend on their interest of the subject or their

perception of the speaker. Students may alter their position in the listening

environment should there be sudden changes in his interest and motivation for a

particular activity. It could also be that his degree of willingness varies from one

speaker to another depending on his judgment of who is more credible. Attention

may improve or deplete depending on what was perceived to what has been

received. If negative judgment was formed at the beginning of a listening event and

turned out the speaker is eloquent, attention can be secured and maintained. There

might also be times when negative judgments were initially formed and so, this

served as a motivation for listeners to spot errors in the person’s speech.

Conceptual Framework
 METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This research paper follows the explorative research design. This design satisfies

the researcher’s goal to explore and feed her curiosity towards a better

understanding of the field of listening. The objectives of this research were designed

to be supported by quantitative facts resulted by respondents’ supplied answer in the

questionnaire. Data were interpreted quantitatively but were also elaborated

qualitatively for a better and clearer understanding of results.

Subjects

Respondents of this explorative study are composed of 2 clusters with a total of 39

students from a speech communication class. They were selected purposively as

they have to be exposed to listening environment similar to that of a speech event.

Respondents comprise of two sections of Mr. Carlo de Pano’s Communication 3

class who were to hear and deliver their extemporaneous speech as a concluding

requirement for the 2nd semester. The respondents belong to different colleges,

taking different degree programs in the University of the Philippines, Diliman.

Procedure

Prior to the harvesting of information by means of questionnaire, the researcher had

spoken with the speech communication instructor regarding the feasibility of the

study using his class. As the course had reached its end and course objectives had
been met, which include getting students prepared for listening and speaking

challenges, the researcher deemed that using the class members as the subject is

indeed feasible in breaking and exploring this ground for listening research.

After explaining the purpose of the study to the respondents, a two-paged

questionnaire was distributed among them. All these were done at the beginning of

the class meeting before their final speech delivery. Questionnaires were personally

handed and collected by the researcher. When all papers have been turned in, they

were prepared and tallied for data analyses.

Instruments

The questionnaires that were used to measure willingness to listen and socio-

communicative orientation were gathered from Dr. James C. McCroskey’s webpage.

Both follows the Likert scale format. No alterations or any changes whatsoever was

done to the questionnaires so as to maintain its realiability and validity.

The sources cited in this study were gathered from the world wide web: from online

journals courtesy of Proquest, and from libraries at UP Diliman, namely: College of

Education and the Main Library.

The researchers used MS Excel to tally and summarize the data. SPSS software

was then used to interpret and analyze all raw data. Appended in this study are the

interpretations, graphs, and charts used and generated from encoded data.
Willingness to Listen Measure

Listening is one of the skills which potential employers often indicate as being critical to
effective communication. Hence, many training programs and college classes provide
instruction in listening. For many people, however, it is not a lack of skill that makes them a
poor listener, it is their orientation toward listening. Some are just not willing to work at
listening. They frequently claim (rightfully?) that they don't listen because of the poor
communication skills of the speaker. This instrument is designed to measure this kind of an
orientation. Alpha reliabilities for this instrument should be expected to be well above .85.

Directions: The following twenty-four statements refer to listening. Please indicate the degree to
which each statement applies to you by marking whether you:

Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; are Neutral =3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5

_____1. I dislike listening to boring speakers.

_____2. Generally, I can listen to a boring speaker.
_____3. I am bored and tired while listening to a boring speaker.
_____4. I will listen when the content of a speech is boring.
_____5. Listening to boring speakers about boring content makes me tired, sleepy, and bored.
_____6. I am willing to listen to boring speakers about boring content.
_____7. Generally, I am unwilling to listen when there is noise during a speaker's presentation.
_____8. Usually, I am willing to listen when there is noise during a speaker's presentation.
_____9. I am accepting and willing to listen to speakers who do not adapt to me.
_____10. I am unwilling to listen to speakers who do not do some adaptation to me.
_____11. Being preoccupied with other things makes me less willing to listen to a speaker.
_____12. I am willing to listen to a speaker even if I have other things on my mind.
_____13. While being occupied with other things on my mind, I am unwilling to listen to a speaker.
_____14. I have a willingness to listen to a speaker, even if other important things are on my mind.
_____15. Generally, I will not listen to a speaker who is disorganized.
_____16. Generally, I will try to listen to a speaker who is disorganized.
_____17. While listening to a non-immediate, non-responsive speaker, I feel relaxed with the speaker.
_____18. While listening to a non-immediate, non-responsive speaker, I feel distant and cold toward
that speaker.
_____19. I can listen to a non-immediate, non-responsive speaker.
_____20. I am unwilling to listen to a non-immediate, non-responsive speaker.
_____21. I am willing to listen to a speaker with views different from mine.
_____22. I am unwilling to listen to a speaker with views different from mine.
_____23. I am willing to listen to a speaker who is not clear about what he or she wants to say.
_____24. I am unwilling to listen to a speaker who is not clear, not credible, and abstract.

SCORING:

Scores can range from 24 to 120. To compute the score on this instrument complete the following
steps:
Step 1: Add scores for items 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 23
Step 2: Add scores for items 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 24
Step 3: Total score = 72 - Total from Step 1 + Total from Step 2.

Scores above 89 indicate a high willingness to listen. Scores below 59 indicate a low willingness to
listen. Score between 59 and 89 indicate a moderate willingness to listen

Source: Richmond, V. P., & Hickson, M. III. (2001). Going public: A practical guide to public talk.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

SocioCommunicative Orientation Scale (SCO)

Sociocommunicative orientation refers to an individual's perception of how assertive and
responsive he/she is. This instrument is designed to measures these orientations. Generally,
these orientations are either totally uncorrelated or only marginally correlated (r < .30). These
are two of the three components of the SCO construct. The third component is variously
labeled as "versatility" or "flexibility." This third component is best measured by the
"Cognitive Flexibility" scale. The alpha reliability estimates for the measures of assertiveness
and responsiveness are generally above .80. The predictive validity of this instrument has
been demonstrated in numerous studies. It is believed that the components of SCO
(assertiveness, responsiveness, and versatility/flexibility) are the essential cognitive
components of general communication competence.

INSTRUCTIONS: The questionnaire below lists twenty personality characteristics. Please indicate
the degree to which you believe each of these characteristics applies to you while interacting with
others by marking whether you (5) strongly agree that it applies, (4) agree that it applies, (3) are
undecided, (2) disagree that it applies, or (1) strongly disagree that it applies. There are no right or
wrong answers. Work quickly; record your first impression.

_____ 1. helpful _____ 11. dominant

_____ 2. defends own beliefs _____ 12. sincere
_____ 3. independent _____ 13. gentle
_____ 4. responsive to others _____ 14. willing to take a stand
_____ 5. forceful _____ 15. warm
_____ 6. has strong personality _____ 16. tender
_____ 7. sympathetic _____ 17. friendly
_____ 8. compassionate _____ 18. acts as a leader
_____ 9. assertive _____ 19. aggressive
_____ 10. sensitive to the needs of others _____ 20. Competitive

Scoring:

For your assertiveness score, add responses to items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 18, and 20.
For your responsiveness score, add responses to items 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17.

Sources:
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of human communication: An interpersonal
perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the assertiveness-
responsiveness scale. Psychological Reports, 67, 449-450.
Data Analysis

This study used quantitative research method for hypothesizing and for interpreting

findings. SPSS software was used to compute for statistical significance of

hypotheses. A test of difference using Chi-square, two-tailed test for correlation

using contingency coefficient, and descriptive statistics were employed to validate

hypotheses and to report relevant findings. Tables and statistical test results were

appended to this research paper (see appendix).

 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

Demographics

There were thirty-nine students who took the survey. All of them were treated fairly

and took the survey under similar circumstance, which was before the speech

listening and giving event. The average age of the respondents is 17. The youngest

respondent is 16 years old and the oldest is 20 years old.

Communication 3 students during the second semester of 2009-2010 under Mr.

Carlo de Pano belong to different degree programs in the University of the

Philippines Diliman. The demographics of degree/programs of participating students

are summarized by the table below:

A huge portion of the sample size comprise of students from the field of sciences.

Twenty students from the various fields of sciences, ten students were taking

courses under the field of arts, and seven students failed to identify their fields and

programs in their answer sheets/questionnaires.

Willingness to Listen

Hypothesis 1 was derived from the assumption that students are conditioned to be

well-ready and prepared to listen to a speech event. Hypothesis 1 states that: Comm

3 students are highly willing to listen to speakers in general.

Using the test of McCroskey to measure the degree of a person’s willingness to

listen, it was found that a sizable portion of the sample size comprise of listeners with
moderate willingness to listen. There were 29 students with moderate willingness, 2

with low willingness, and 8 with high willingness to listen.

A test of difference using Chi-square was used to determine whether those values show significant

statistical difference. Result shows a Chi-square of 30.923 and P-value of 0%, meaning, the difference

of their degree of willingness to listen is statistically and highly significant.

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
WTListen 39 2.1538 .48874 1.00 3.00

Test Statistics
Willingness To Listen WTListen
Expected Chi-Square 30.923a
df 2
Observed N N Residual Asymp. Sig. .000
1.00 2 13.0 -11.0 a. 0 cells (.0%) have
2.00 29 13.0 16.0
expected frequencies less
3.00 8 13.0 -5.0
than 5. The minimum
Total 39
expected cell frequency is

13.0.

Albeit this figure, which shows that the difference of students’ willingness to listen is

highly significant statistically, hypothesis 1 was not supported mainly because

majority of the students have moderate willingness to listen.

Such result shows that a speech environment does not ensure same speech

behavior and attitude for general group of listeners. Many factors can be attributed to

this such as age, level of maturity, interest, and experience. The researcher assumed

that the students’ knowledge of the extemporaneous speech activity will boost them
to prepare and become open to effective listening and communication. This

assumption may seem too idealistic as concrete results of this survey do not

generate the notion that was previously suggested. The researcher deemed that

students’ response was only due to their level of maturity based on their age. Also,

their poor willingness to listen may be due to their lack of experience and exposure

to listening events; that their behavior and attitude towards listening to speaking

events were not yet fully grounded.

Socio-Communicative Orientation

This study aimed to determine the socio-communicative orientation of the students

involved in the survey. Testing for hypothesis 2, which states that there is a

significant difference in Comm 3 students’ socio-communicative orientation, the

researcher used Chi-square test of difference. There is a significant difference in the

socio-communicative orientation of Comm3 students with a Chi square of 34.41 and

a P-value of 0%. It was found that only 2 of the 39 respondents were assertive and

the remaining 37 were labeled responsive according to the scale of Dr. Mc Croskey.

Garnering the aforementioned results, it can be said that hypothesis 2 is supported.

 SCO

Observed N Expected N Residual

1.00 37 19.5 17.5
2.00 2 19.5 -17.5
Total 39

Test Statistics
SCO
Chi-Square 31.410a
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .000
a. 0 cells (.0%) have

expected frequencies

less than 5. The

minimum expected cell

frequency is 19.5.

Two students were found assertive but no known link to willingness to listen was

determined since the other student did not indicate his/her name, age and course.

The other student is eighteen (18) years old taking up BS Geography. Based on the

educational background of the other assertive student, it can be said that one’s

degree program does not readily determine one’s socio-communicative orientation.

Although geography students do not focus much on honing communication skills, it

does not follow that they are only receptive of the messages they receive.

Other factors can be attributed to one’s socio-communicative orientation such as

age, gender, educational and cultural background, socio-economic status, etc. In

spite of such factors, its linkage to socio-communicative orientation cannot be

affirmed in this study because of the underlying constraints and limitations of this

research paper.

Correlation between Socio-communicative Orientation and Degree of

Willingness to Listen

Upon determining the degree of students’ willingness to listen and their socio-

communicative orientation, the researcher verified if there is a correlation between

the two aforementioned variables. Testing hypothesis 3, which states that there is a

significant correlation between the students’ willingness to listen and their socio-

communicative orientation, the researcher found that Contingency Coefficient

measured 0.171 and P-value measured 55.7% using 2-tailed test of correlation.

Given this, it can be concluded that there is no significant correlation between

students’ level of willingness to listen and their socio-communicative orientation.

Hypothesis 3 is, therefore, not supported.

WTL * SCO Crosstabulation

Count

SCO

1.00 2.00 Total

WTL 1.00 2 0 2
2.00 28 1 29
3.00 7 1 8
Total 37 2 39
 Symmetric Measures
Asymp. Std.

Value Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Phi .173 .557
Cramer's V .173 .557
Nominal
Contingency .171 .557

Coefficient
Interval by Interval Pearson's R .167 .172 1.029 .310c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .169 .178 1.046 .302c
N of Valid Cases 39
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.

Regardless of whether a person is assertive or responsive, it is not an accurate

determinant of his willingness to listen. One person may be assertive as determined

by his answers to Mc Croskey’s measure but he may not be highly willing to listen.

Also, one person may be unwilling to listen but then he still listens. One may show

uninterested in speech events but may manifest keenness of attention when listening

to speakers in general. Considering such things, we may say that a person’s attitude

is truly different to that of a person’s behavior.

 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Through the course of this research, the following points were ascertained:

 On the event of a speech listening and giving activity, Comm 3 students’

willingness to listen remain moderate.

 Sampled Comm 3 students are generally responsive listeners based on

the scale derived by Dr. James McCroskey.

 Students’ socio-communicative orientation does not readily reflect the

degree of their willingness to listen. No known correlation was found in the

course of this study – there is no significant correlation between

willingness to listen and socio-communicative orientation.

With the above presented findings, the researcher realized that this area can be

developed and studied on a more comprehensive level by identifying other factors

that affect or may not affect the degree of willingness to listen and its correlation to

the response styles and orientation of participants.

RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDIES

The researcher realized many vital points in this explorative study. Many interesting

points can be developed in order to identify and cultivate correlations between /

among variables. Such realizations can be reviewed and recommended for further

studies such as the following:

 Further researches on similar topic as this study may use a specific group of

respondents so generalizations can easily be drawn.

 Due to time constraints, follow up interview has not been made possible.

Feedback from interview is greatly helpful in explaining why such and such

listening attitude and behavior is inherent among respondents. In doing so,

other variables that may have influenced respondents’ willingness and

orientation can be identified.

 Educational background must also be considered. Does a particular course

significantly hone and influence a students’ maturity towards listening and

socio-communicative orientation?

 Further researches may also look into age as a factor in identifying one’s

degree of willingness to listen.

 REFERENCES

Brownell, Judi (2006). Listening: Attitudes, Principles, and Skills. Boston :

Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of human
communication: An interpersonal perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press.

Richmond V.P. & McCroskey, J.C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the
assertiveness measure, Psychological Reports, 67, 449-450.

Richmond, V. P., & Hickson, M. III. (2001). Going public: A practical guide to public
talk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Thompson, K., et al. (2004). The Integrative Listening Model: An Approach to

Teaching and Learning Listening. The Journal of General Education, Vol. 53,
No. 2-4. PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRES

APPENDIX B – SPSS RAW DATA AND MS EXCEL TABULATIONS