The Nature and Correlates of Conversational Sensitivity

Abstract

People differ in their sensitivity to what happens during conversations: Some individuals enjoy listening to social exchanges, pick up hidden meanings in conversations, can generate optimal ways of saying things in interactions, and are generally "savvy"about the different sorts of power and affinity relationships exhibited in conversations. In this article we explore the nature and correlates of conversational sensitivity. People high in sensitivity make more high-level inferences when listening to social exchanges, unitize conversation in smaller chunks, emphasizeconversation characteristics in their memories ofinteractions, and make more self-referents about conversations than less sensitive individuals. In addition, conversational sensitivity is positively related to self-monitoring, private self-consciousness, perceptiveness, self-esteem, assertiveness, empathy, and social skills. It is inversely related to communication apprehension. receiver apprehension, and social anxiety. In Q final study, conversatimal sensitivity is construed not as an individual difference but as situational response: In some settings under some conditions, people become more sensitive to what happens in conversation. 0 into any meeting, observe any conversation, discuss previous conversations with others, and you will probably G find that people seem to differ in their sensitivity to what occurs in interactions. Some people seem very "savvy" about social interaction: they sense what is "really" being said in conversations, who John A. Daly (Ph.D., Purdue University, 1977) is an associate professor in the Department of Speech Communication, University of Texas-Austin. Anita L. Vangelisti (M.A., University of Washington, 1985) is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Speech Communication, University of Texas-Austin. Suzanne M. Daughton (M.A., University of Texas, 1987) is a Ph.D. student in the

The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and Evidence of Validity Within the Interpersonal Domain

“…The relationship between the AELS, II, and CS mirrors the work of Daly et al (1988), who found an overall correlation of .28 (p < .02) between the CS total score and the II total score, and a somewhat higher correlation (r ¼ .55, p < .001) between perceptiveness and the CS total score. For this study, the correlations among the AELS subscales and the total scores for the II and CS scales ranged from .29 to .45.…”

“…A similar concept, conversational sensitivity (CS), was developed by Daly, Vangelisti, and Daughton (1988), and refers to an individual's attention to and awareness of underlying meanings in conversations. The original study found eight underlying dimensions of CS-detecting meanings (ability to detect deeper and multiple meanings from what others say), conversational memory (ability to remember conversational content), conversational alternatives (ability to develop different conversational strategies), conversational imagination (tendency to imagine conversations), conversational enjoyment (tendency to enjoy participating in or listening to conversations), interpretation (capacity to detect underlying meaning, irony, sarcasm, etc.…”

“…Consequently, participants were assigned three scores, one for each dimension: attentiveness (a ¼ .74), perceptiveness (a ¼ .65), and responsiveness (a ¼ .81). Second, the 36-item scale developed by Daly et al (1988) was used to measure CS. Although the original study found eight factors, little research has used the scale since its inception; that which has reports variations of the original factor structure (Salisbury & Chen, 2007;Stacks & Murphy, 1993).…”

Conceptualizing and Measuring How Employees and Organizations Manage Uncertainty

“…For this reason, the composite sum score is used instead of individual factors. This procedure is commonly accepted when researchers want to operationalize a construct in its broadest sense (Daily, Vangelista, & Daughton, 1987;Fry, Botan, & Kreps, 2000;Levine & McCroskey, 1990) or when the composite score is more strongly related to other variables than the underlying factors (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). The composite sum score for the PUM Scale produced a mean of 57.19, median of 57, and standard deviation of 8.36 (n = 1046).…”

Situational formality, personality, and avoidance‐avoidance conflict as causes of interpersonal equivocation

“…Another way in which SM is likely related to equivocation is that, almost by definition, it represents an enhanced focus on situational constraints (e.g., Bell, 1987), some of which (e.g., AAC) might suggest the need for more equivocation. The focus of high self-monitors on situational constraints can be found in the attention they pay to the nature of conversations (Daly, Vangelisti, & Daughton, 1987) as well as to the reciprocity and variability of self-disclosive behaviors (Shaffer, Smith, & Tomarelli, 1982;Smith, Shaffer, & Tomarelli, 1981;Tardy & Hosman, 1982). This focus also can be seen in the positive relationship of SM to conformity in some interpersonal and group situations (Rarick, Soldow, 8c Geizer, 1976;Snyder 8c Monson, 1975) implying that high self-monitors might be more attuned to aspects of situations that suggest the possibility of face-saving concerns and tactics (as pressures to conform often do) and, therefore, also more attuned to whether equivocation seems necessary or viable.…”