This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Role of Competence, Perceived Heterophily,
and Satisfaction in the Context of University-
Community Collaborative Relationships

presented by

Mikayla Hughes

 

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Communication-
Urban Studies

 

flfl
Major piéfessor

Date 41m 102.

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

  
     

  

.UBRARY
Michigan State
University

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

NOV 2 1 zum

 

1202 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DaieDue.p65-p.15

THE ROLE OF COMPETENCE, PERCEIVED HETEROPHILY, AND
SATISFACTION IN THE CONTEXT OF UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
By

Mikayla Hughes

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fiilfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2002

ABSTRACT
THE ROLE OF COMPETENCE, PERCEIVED HETEROPHILY, AND
SATISFACTION IN THE CONTEXT OF UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
By

Mikayla Hughes

A growing emphasis on outreach scholarship and emerging disciplines such as
Community Psychology and Applied Developmental Science have yielded an increase in
institutional and intellectual support of university-community collaborative efforts.
Increasingly, researchers are moving away from treating community members as just
study participants and are starting to view community members as partners in university-
community research collaborations. The extent to which graduate student liaisons
communicate competently with community-affiliated individuals will have important
impact on the success of university-community collaborative relationships. Thirteen
graduate student liaisons participated in a preliminary study of a model that posits self-
perceived communication competence and perceived heterophily interact to affect
conversational satisfaction. While this study provides very little insight on the
hypotheses, this preliminary study provided valuable insights on how to better measure
communication competence in the context of long-term collaborative relationships. Also,
logistical barriers encountered in the process of data collection indicated that expansion

of the potential participant criteria may be necessary for future studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. viii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1

A MODEL OF INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE, PERCEIVED HETEROPHILY,
AND CONVERSATIONAL SATISFACTION ................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2

METHODS .......................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3

RESULTS ........................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX A

SELF -RATED COMPETENCE .................................................................. 35
APPENDIX B

PERCEIVED HOMOPHILY MEASURE ...................................................... 36
APPENDIX C

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION INVENTORY . ....37
APPENDIX D

PARTICIPANT AND RELATIONSHIP INFORMATION .................................. 38
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 39

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Predicted competence by heterophily interaction ................................... 49
Table 2. Correlations between competence, homophily,
length of relationship and satisfaction ........................................................... 51

Table 3. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis
for variable predicting satisfaction ............................................................... 53

LIST OF FIGURES

F igure 1. Model of interpersonal competence,

perceived heterophily, and conversational satisfaction ......................................... 45
Figure 2. Predicted competence by heterophily interaction ................................... 47

INTRODUCTION

Institutional changes and intellectual shifts have heralded a boom in university-
community collaborative relationships. Several scholars have indicated that there is a
current trend among institutions of higher education of placing a greater emphasis on
outreach scholarship (Harkavy, 1996; Lerner & Simon, 1998; Votruba, 1996). Outreach
scholarship occurs when the scholarship activities of knowledge generation, transmission,
and application are carried out in concert with communities in a manner that directly
benefits these communities (Lerner & Simon, 1998). The idea of academia pursuing
scholarly endeavors to benefit society is not new. Universities have always generated,
transmitted, and applied knowledge in order to contribute to the public good, however
instead of adhering to academia’s standards of what are pressing societal issues,
universities must subject themselves to communities’ and to the general public’s opinion
of what is the public good and what is success in outreach endeavors (Chibucos &
Lerner, 1999; Harkavy, 1996). This trend towards an emphasis on outreach scholarship
has yielded an increase in institutional support of university-community collaborative
efforts.

Some scholars have come to acknowledge the importance of studying the
influence of contextual and ecological factors, or a systems approach, on human behavior
(Chibucos & Lerner, 1999; Kelly, 1986). Areas of study, such as ecological psychology,
community psychology, and applied developmental science, have emerged that
investigate the impact of social systems on individual or group behavior. Even
researchers in fields that traditionally value theory that is largely independent of context

have come to acknowledge the importance of context in human behavior. For example

health communication and health psychology researchers must take community culture
into account when researching the efficacy of preventative health messages (Schensul,
1999)

These institutional and intellectual changes are evident in the way community
based research is conducted. Increasingly, community members are no longer simply
study participants and are educating researchers about the culture of their community.
Researchers at Iowa State University, extension personnel, and community participants
collaborated on Project Family. The goals of Project Family were to generate knowledge
that furthers the area of family-focused competency building and to increase the well-
being of program participants (Spoth & Molgaard, 1999). Partners were interested in
discerning which strategies were most effective in disseminating empirically-supported
family and youth-focused preventative interventions. An independent evaluation team
assessed the effectiveness of a formalized curriculum for custodial grandparents that was
created through collaborative efforts among Western Michigan University researchers
from various disciplines, extension agents, representatives of government agencies
serving grandparents, and custodial grandparents (Smith & Dannison, 1999). Before this
collaborative effort, no such resource existed for custodial grandparents. Now this
curriculum serves as a valuable resource because many custodial grandparents had been
frustrated, isolated from community support networks, and some had poor parenting
skills.

Schensul (1999) defines community-based research as research that is conducted
in naturalistic settings and attempts to understand issues and problems within the context

of the community (Schensul, 1999). However, conducting research within communities

can yield a plethora of problems. Community-based researchers face problems of
difficulty in soliciting participants, ignorance concerning community context, cultivating
trust within the community, and promoting sustainable outcomes. In order to solve these
problems, community members or representatives should be fully involved in the
research process (Altman, 1995; Kelly, 1986; Schensul, 1999).

Community based research can function not only to serve communities and bring
about solutions and new ways to approach societal issues but also fiIrther academic goals
of theory building and knowledge accumulation (Kelly, 1986). Ultimately, a good
community-researcher partnership will yield sustainability and empowerment for the
community and knowledge and insights into new methods, exposure to differing views
concerning constructs and relationships, long-term research partnerships, and new
research questions. By sharing their knowledge concerning the community and their
anecdotal observations of the social processes that are the focus of the project,
community-affiliated individuals provide researchers with information that may inform
the research process, methods, or even theory.

One would think that since there are so many potential benefits for all the
constituents involved in university-community research partnerships that the prospect of
conducting community based research endeavors would be viewed as a win-win
proposition for all involved. While ideally all involved parties stand to benefit from
community based research efforts, misconceptions of their counterpart’s abilities and
capacities diminish the likelihood of positive outcomes.

These misconceptions stem in part from a difference in view on how to approach

social issues facing a community. Chavis, Stucky, and Wandersman (1983) assert that

there is a basic philosophical difference between university researchers and citizens
concerning how to approach issues. They point out that leaders in the community or
community members are expected to solve complex problems as soon as possible with
incomplete information while researchers approach problems systematically and wait to
make any conclusions until all data have been collected and analyzed. Communities
view researchers as a source of expert knowledge that will provide solutions for their
problems. However, the ways of knowing and knowledge generation methods utilized by
researchers cannot provide the immediate results and changes expected by communities.

Chavis, Stucky, Wandersman (1983) assert that there are differences in the
research questions posed by researchers and the questions valued by communities.
According to the authors, these differences may make researchers reluctant to relinquish
intellectual control over the research. Hesitancy on the part of researchers to share
control of the research process and community misunderstanding and doubt concerning
the benefits that community based research can produce can hinder the formation of
community-researcher partnerships of abilities and capacities.

These misconceptions are evident in the unidimensional influence models that
have been utilized in a good portion of community based research efforts (Tyler,
Pargament, & Gatz, 1983). Under a unidimensional influence model, researchers work
on or in the community as opposed to working with the community. Researchers may on
occasion come into a community, with little if any previous communication with the
community, to conduct a study with fully developed research questions and protocol

(Kelly, 1986). When researchers approach community-based research in this manner

there is little regard for preexisting community based knowledge that might inform
research questions or protocol.

Also, much of community-based research has been approached from a person-
centered approach (Altman, 1995; Tyler, Pargament, & Gatz, 1983). Under a person-
centered approach, or deficit model, researchers conceptualize social ills with a focus on
person centered variables. People that are to be helped are viewed as lacking in some
characteristic (Caplan & Nelson, 1973; Tyler, Pargament, & Gatz, 1973). This
characteristic may be valued in the realm of academia but may be viewed differently in
the context of the community’s culture.

Unfortunately, the very benefits and positive outcomes that both communities and
researchers stand to gain from successfiil community based research endeavors are stifled
by the unidimensional approach and deficit models. Researchers with the intent of
developing expertise and independence among community members realized that
unidirectional influence models promote dependence instead of fostering empowerment
(Tyler, Pargament, & Gatz, 1973). Several researchers assert potential benefits of
community-researcher partnerships can best be achieved by way of a co-learning model
(Altman, 1995; Kelly, 1986).

The term collaboration is often misused to describe more unidimensional
influence relationships. There are few instances of community wide partnerships, or
collaborations, in which all constituents had equal status (Lerner, Simon, & Mitchell,
1998). True collaborative relationships are consistent with a co learning model. Under a
co learning model, or models of mutual influence, both researchers’ and communities’

goals, knowledge, and capacities are equally valued (Tyler, Pargament, & Gatz, 1983).

Ultimately collaborators become a learning community. A learning community is a
group, whether it is university-based researchers and community-affiliated individuals or
a group of working mothers sharing parenting tips, that Shares and utilizes information as
part of a social experience (Walshok, 1995). Parties involved in a learning community
focus on the strengths and assets of other members and their environments and attempt to
harness those strengths and assets to learn and grow together (Casto, Harch, &
Cunningham, 1998). Ideally, collaborating communities and researchers will become a
learning community. In order to achieve this goal, researchers and community affiliated
individuals must become knowledgeable and sensitive to the mores, values, and practices
of the other (Lerner & Simon, 1998). Socialization among parties, in the context of a
learning community of researchers and community-affiliated individuals, is a vehicle for
development of empathy, mutual respect and interest, and a shared agenda (Walshok,
1995).

Lack of understanding of the other parties involved in the collaborative
relationship is a severe barrier to the establishment and maintenance of co learning and
the resulting collaborative efforts (Lerner & Simon, 1998). Competent communication
among collaborators promotes understanding among collaborators. Individuals in a
collaborative need to establish common goals, communicate their own assets and
limitations, and acknowledge their partner’s assets and limitations (Foley, 1998).
Collaboration should not only yield benefits specific to the research project but also
promote sustainability of projects and empowerment of community constituents. Altman
(1995) defines sustainability as the infrastructure that is left to maintain a project after the

researchers leave and community capacity to maintain the project. Sustainability is more

likely when communities are fully involved. Empowered communities feel an ownership
over the project and are able to acquire the necessary resources (Altman, 1995).

There is little published empirical research investigating the impact of quality
communication on outcomes, such as research findings and project sustainability, from
university-community collaborations. However, there are countless published antidotal
accounts written by community-based researchers concerning how to promote more
successful and lasting university-community collaboration (see Chibucos & Lerner, 1999;
Lerner & Simon, 1998). A common theme among these antidotal accounts is the central
role that quality communication plays in the collaborative process. Skills necessary for
successful collaboration include: effective communication, constructive conflict
resolution, and negotiating mutual benefit (Foley, 1998; Kelly, 1986; Schensul, 1999).

If effective communication and promoting mutual benefit is vital to the initiation
and maintenance of university-community collaborative relationship, then one might
suggest that representatives for potential collaborating entities be selected on the on the
basis of their competence as communicators. However, while research teams may be
able to select a team representative based on the potential representative’s interpersonal
competence, community representatives are usually selected on the basis of their
knowledge and connections within the community.

Beyond selecting research team representatives based on their interpersonal
competence, it may be useful to incorporate communication competence training into the
curricula for graduate students in disciplines that may conduct some amount of
community-based research. Votruba (1996) suggests that future faculty should receive

some training in how to effectively communicate with individuals with differing values

and cultural backgrounds. It is not uncommon for graduate students to serve in the role
of representative for the research team. While faculty members may initiate
communication between the research team and a community, graduate students usually
conduct the majority of communication with the community once a collaborative
relationship has been established. As mentioned earlier, co learning collaborative models
may be valued in theory by several disciplines; however, community-based research
endeavors that are truly collaborative in nature are few in number. While graduate
students may come to value the ideal of a co learning model, they may simply view it as
an unobtainable ideal. By giving graduate students an opportunity to learn and practice
the Skills necessary to build and maintain a co learning relationship with a community,
these future faculty members may be more likely to exhibit communication behaviors
that are consistent with a co learning model and approach community based research
endeavors as a partnership instead of a project in need of community members to serve as
participants.

The purpose of the proposed preliminary study is to test a model of interpersonal
competence, perceived heterophily, and conversational satisfaction in the context of
collaborative relationships (see Figure 1). If communication is an integral aspect of
collaborative relationships, then collaborators Should experience greater conversational
satisfaction when they perceive their own interpersonal behavior as competent.
Researchers have found a positive relationship between interpersonal competence and
satisfaction (Spitzberg & Brunner, 1991; Spitzberg & Hecht, 1984). Conversational
satisfaction is of interest as an outcome variable because a positive relationship between

conversational satisfaction and relationship maintenance has been established in various

relational contexts. There is likely to be some difference in values, cultural background,
and education between researchers and community-affiliated individuals. Collaborators

perceptions of heterophily between self and their fellow collaborator should interact with
perceptions of their own interpersonal competence to impact perceptional of

conversational satisfaction.

CHAPTER 1

A MODEL OF INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE, PERCEIVED
HETEROPHILY, AND CONVERSATIONAL SATISFACTION

A collaborative relationship between researchers and communities can yield
positive benefits for both parties. Researchers can gain insight different from their own
concerning constructs and relationships of interest, better access to community resources,
assistance with research tasks, and an ongoing dialogue with the community concerning
future research projects. Communities can have access to empirical knowledge that has
the potential to increase the quality of life of community residents. However, it takes an
established rapport and trust between communities and researchers to reap these possible
benefits.

Both factions, which are likely to be heterogeneous to some extent, must negotiate
their differences and find a means to build a collaborative relationship. While researchers
may be willing to make changes and sacrifices to collect data, community members may
be extremely hesitant to make even small changes for a research project. The impetus to
develop and maintain successful a collaborative relationship often rests upon the graduate
students who serve as liaisons between the communities and research teams. Graduate
student liaisons must be able to adequately communicate the abilities and limitations of
the research team and understand the context, desires, and concerns of the community.
The demonstration of interpersonally competent behavior by graduate student liaisons in
their conversations with community representatives is integral in the development and
maintenance of a collaborative relationship.

The purpose of the proposed study is to test a model, as shown in Figure 1, that

posits interpersonal competence and perceived heterophily interact to affect

lO

conversational satisfaction. First, the construct of interpersonal competence and its
relevance concerning collaborative relationships will be presented. Second, issues
concerning how to conceptualize and measure competence will be discussed. Third,
evidence supporting the relevance of conversational satisfaction as an outcome measure
will follow. Next, the role of heterophily among groups or dyads on resulting outcomes is
explored. Finally, the impact of the interaction of perceived heterophily and
interpersonal competence on conversational satisfaction is discussed. For the purpose of
the proposed study, self-perceived interpersonal competence, perceived heterophily,
conversational satisfaction will be measured among graduate students who serve as
liaisons on a research team conducting community-based research.

In order for the positive benefits of co learning, sustainability, and empowerment
to come about, collaborative partnerships are best conceived as a long-term relationship
between researchers and communities (Altman, 1995). Quality communication plays a
critical role in relationship maintenance. The extent to which competent communication
occurs in a relationship impacts the success or failure of the relationship (Spitzberg,
1993). Competence is essential to the maintenance of all relationships (Burleson, Metts,
& Kirch, 2000; Prisbell, 1995; Spitzberg & Cupach, in press).

Communication Commtence

Competence is an impression inferred from behavior. Perceptions of
communication competence reside in the individuals engaged in the conversation (Duran,
1 983). Judgements of competence can be formed about self and also conversational

partners. Individuals’ perceptions of their conversational partner’s communication

competence are inferred from their observations of their conversational partners’ skills

1]

(Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001). Perceptions of one’s own communication competence can
impact behavior. Perceptions of one’s own communication competence affects one’s
willingness to communicate (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990). Thus impressions of
communication competence are influenced by perceptions of self and other’s
interpersonal behavior.

Communication competence is frequently conceptualized as appropriate and
effective communication behavior (Spitzberg, 1984). Competent communicators exhibit
communication behaviors that are appropriate for the particular conversation in which
they are participating. Appropriate communication behaviors meet the social demands of
the situation in which a conversation occurs and do not violate social norms held by
either participant in the conversation (Larson, Backlund, Redmond, & Barbour, 1978).
Competent communicators are often effective in their communicative endeavors.
Communication is viewed as effective when participant goals or desired outcomes are
achieved. Yet, effectiveness is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for behavior
to be considered competent (McCroskey, 1982). The extent to which participants’ efforts
in conversations are viewed as effective is limited by the circumstances present in the
situation that conversations take place (Spitzberg, 1984). In situations for which the
likelihood of achieving desired outcomes are extremely limited, participants may still
view their communicative efforts as competent even if they are not effective in achieving
desired outcomes.

Communication competence has been investigated as both a trait and as a
situational variable. Conceptualized as a trait, communication competence is enduring

and stable across situations. Individuals high in communication competence demonstrate

12

competent communicative behavior regardless of time, situations, or conversational
partner. When conceptualized as a situational variable, communication competence may
vary across contexts for the same individual. For example, individuals may demonstrate
high levels of communication competence at work but exhibit low levels of
communication competence at home. Context is not limited to settings and can include
different types of relationship. Perceptions of what is considered competent
communicative behavior may differ depending on the type of relationship.
Communicative behaviors that are competent in the context of a romantic relationship
may be totally incompetent in the context of a professional relationship at the workplace.
Some researchers have defined communication competence as a trait (Anderson
& Martin, 1995) and have investigated the relationship between competence to various
psychosocial constructs including willingness to communicate (McCroskey & Richmond,
1990) and cognitive flexibility (Martin & Anderson, 1998). Competence is not a trait
(Parks, 1984; Spitzberg, 1988; Spitzberg, 1991). Spitzberg (1989) asserts that because
competence is the ability to change as social circumstance dictates it is best not to
conceptualize competence as a stable disposition. He goes on to suggest that a
multiplicity of traits is more likely to accurately portray the complex nature of the
competence construct. Parks (1984) states that the issue of if competence is better
conceptualized as general across situations and/or interactants or specific to situations
and/or interactants is of an empirical nature.
Both molecular and molar behaviors can be the basis of judgments of

communication competence (Spitzberg, 1984). Molecular behaviors are specific

behaviors that happen during a specific conversation such as eye contact, rapid speech, or

13

fidgeting. Molar behaviors are more abstract and are impressions based on complex
combinations of molecular behaviors. The behaviors that are the source of impressions
of competent communication can be described in terms of molar behaviors, molecular
behaviors or at various points along the molar-molecular continuum. Both Parks (1984)
and Spitzberg and Cupach (2001) attempt to organize competent behavior along the
molar-molecular continuum.

There is some conceptual overlap concerning interpersonal competence and the
communication behaviors necessary for fruitful collaborative efforts. Competent
interpersonal behavior is goal driven, adaptive, and interdependent (Parks, 1984;
Spitzberg, 1984). This is consistent with the notion that parties in a collaborative
relationship must negotiate mutual benefit, possess empathy, and demonstrate cultural
sensitivity. Interpersonally competent individuals utilize communicative behaviors
appropriate to the context of the interaction in order to attempt to meet their goals.

Competent communication is adaptive (Duran, 1983; Parks, 1984). Situational
constraints dictate what is considered appropriate and effective behavior (Spitzberg,
1984). There are six contextual dimensions that influence perceptions of competence:
culture, time, relationship, place, and function (Spitzberg & Cupach, in press). Research
concerning intercultural communication competence emphases contextual factors,
especially culture (Chen & Starosta, 1996). According to Chen and Starosta, competent
communicators that interact with individuals who have cultural identities different from
their own understand how to accomplish their own interpersonal goals as they respect the
cultural identities of their conversational partners. Because it is likely that collaborating

researchers and community-affiliated individuals will have differing cultural identities, it

14

is crucial that each party cultivate a knowledge and understanding of the others’ culture.
Knowledge and understanding of one’s conversational partner’s cultural identity
facilitates one’s ability to determine which conversational goals behaviors are appropriate
and which should be avoided.

When measuring competence, researchers must specify the time frame in which
competence is being assessed (Spitzberg, in press). As time between a conversation and
evaluation of competence increases, competence evaluations become increasingly self-
focused, positive and molar (Spitzberg, 1987). The amount of time that conversational
partners have been acquainted and the nature of their relationship have a baring on
assessments of competence. According to Spitzberg (1987) it is likely that individuals
judge the competence of friends and acquaintances differently from strangers. Also,
Spitzberg asserts that differences in status between conversational partners may influence
how individuals perceive the competence of their partners. Competent communication is
interdependent (Parks, 1984; Spitzberg, 1984). Competent communicators must take the
needs and goals of their conversational partner into account when attempting to meet
their own goals. Attempts to negotiate mutual benefit will be viewed as more
interpersonally competent behavior than simply seeking to achieve one’s own
conversational goals (Wiemann & Kelly, 1981).

Measuring and Conceptualizing Interpersonal Communication Competence

The construct of communication competence has been explored in variety of
diverse literatures. Researchers have examined the nature of competent communication

in the workplace (Goodall, 1982), the classroom (McCroskey, 1982), and in cross-

cultural situations (Chen & Starosta, 1996). Also, researchers have examined the

15

relationship between incompetent communication behaviors and relational conflict
(Spitzberg, 1989).

Exploration of communication competence in a variety of areas has led to an
abundance of differing measures of competence (Spitzberg, 1989). Some of these
measures are limited to a Specific context. For example, Spitzberg (1988) points out that
there are measures that assess competence in educational situations, such as classroom
performance. Other measures conceptualize competence as a trait or stable disposition
that may be assessed by way of competence on the basis of individuals’ answers to
various scenarios (e. g., Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988; Rubin & Martin,
1994). There are another group of competence measures that ask individuals to assess
their own and/or their conversational partners competence at the episodic level (e.g.,
Eadie & Paulson, 1984; Spitzberg, 1997).

In an attempt to incorporate notions of communication competence that had been
developed in diverse contexts, Spitzberg and Hecht (1984) present a component model of
relational competence. According to Spitzberg and Hecht, competent communication is
composed of three components: motivation, knowledge, and skill.

The three components of motivation, knowledge, and skill are combined to yield a
measure of communication competence. Perceptions of both conversational partners
communication behaviors impact competence judgment. An individual’s self-rating of
competence is a function of that individual’s motivation, knowledge, and skills of the
individual and their conversational partner. An individual’s rating of his or her
conversational partner is a function of that individual’s motivation, knowledge, and skills

of the individual and their conversational partner. The 3 component model is consistent

16

with the idea that perceptions of competence are interdependent. While the model does
conceptualize competence as being based on perceptions of both conversational partners,
several of the predictions refer to relationships between individuals’ perceptions of their
own or their conversational partners’ competence and satisfaction.

Utilizing their component model of relational competence, Spitzberg and Hecht
(1984) found a positive relationship between communication competence and satisfaction
with the conversation. This positive relationship was found for both self-perceived and
other competence. While self-perceived competence ratings do not provide us with a
direct account of conversational partners’ perceptions of others’ competence, self-
perceived competence is useful because it is positively correlated with conversational
partner ratings of competence (Spitzberg, 1984). Spitzberg (in press) asserts that self-
report measures of competence are useful when participants are asked to base their
competence ratings on past events.

The measures developed for the 3 component model are episodic in nature, i.e.
they as respondents to evaluate one specific conversation. This is problematic for
researchers who may want to assess perceptions of competence that have evolved over a
relationship. In an ongoing relationship, impressions of competence are likely to be
based on general memories rather than on a single conversational episode (Spitzberg,
1987). Cupach and Spitzberg have developed a self-report measure that assesses self-
perceived competence, Self-Rated Competence (SRC)(Spitzberg, 1988). While the SRC
was originally intended as an episodic measure, few changes were necessary to make the

instrument applicable to assessments of competence based on several conversations.

17

Individuals who demonstrate competent interpersonal behavior in the context of
collaborative efforts attempt to reach their own goals in a manner appropriate to the
situation in which the conversations take place; try to understand the goals, culture, and
limitations of their partners; attempt to find a means to achieve mutual benefit, and strive
to develop a co learning relationship with their partners. Consistent with Spitzberg and
Hecht (1984), a positive relationship between perceptions of competence and satisfaction
is expected. Individuals participating in a collaborative effort who perceive themselves
as behaving in an interpersonally competent manner will have greater conversational
satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1 Graduate student liaisons who perceive themselves as high in
interpersonal competence will have higher levels of conversational satisfaction than
graduate student liaisons who perceive themselves as low in interpersonal competence.
Homophily/HeterophiLy

Graduate student liaisons may perceive low levels of homophily between
themselves and the community-affiliated individuals with which they communicate.
Researchers and community-affiliated individuals are likely to be heterogeneous in their
values, ways of knowing, communication styles, and lifestyles (Myers-Walls, 2000).
Also, researchers and community-affiliated individuals may differ in ethnicity and
socioeconomic status. For the purpose of the proposed study, dyad homophily will be
limited to perceived similarities in socioeconomic status and background. Many of the
communities solicited for participation in community based research projects have
residents that are mostly of lower socioeconomic status and of an ethnicity other than

Caucasian (Harkavy, 1996) while a good number of researchers hail from middle-class

18

backgrounds (Kelly, 1986). These differences in backgrounds may also be associated
with differences in morals and values. Myers-Walls believes that collaborations between
heterogeneous researchers and paraprofessionals affiliated with the community, such as
social workers or educators, are likely to become more fruitfiil when the groups
communicate effectively.

Opportunities for innovative ideas to be brought to light multiply when
collaboration among parties from heterogeneous economic, educational, and ethnic
backgrounds occurs (Blackwell & Stanberry, 1999). Interpersonal communication is not
simply a back and forth exchange of messages. Parties involved in communication bring
their education, life experiences, and cognitive processing style to the equation. The
extent to which communicating individuals are similar can influence the meaning
assigned to the messages shared in an interaction and the way the individuals feel about
the conversation.

Much research has been conducted concerning the impact of dyadic or group
heterophily on resulting outcomes. Heterophily in a group or dyad is simply the extent to
which the members are different. Groups and dyads can differ in ethnicity, gender, age,
educational background, occupational background, and cognitive processing styles. The
qualities that groups/dyads may differ on can be observable or skill based (Milliken &
Martins, 1996). Observable differences include ethnicity, gender, and age. Skill based
differences include educational background, occupational background, and cognitive
processing styles. Individuals may develop values or morals based on either observable
differences such as ethnicity or based on skill based differences such as educational

background.

19

In their review of the impact of heterophily on group process outcomes, Milliken
and Martins (1996) acknowledge that past research conflicts on whether heterophily
inhibits or facilitates positive group outcomes. Some research supports the claim that
heterophily leads to decreases in satisfaction among group members and increases in
turnover (Jackson et a1., 1991; Mueleer, Finley, Iverson, & Prices, 1991). Highly
heterogeneous groups are likely to have members who feel less integrated and therefore
will have members who are dissatisfied and leave the group (Jackson et a1., 1991).

Conversely, dyads that are low in heterophily, or more homogeneous, experience
greater satisfaction. This relationship between low heterophily and satisfaction has been
found concerning the degree to which dyads are heterogeneous in social-cognitive skills
(Martin & Andersan, 1995; Waldron & Applegate, 1998) communication skills (Burleson
& Denton, 1992; Burleson & Samter, 1996), and values (Davis, 1981). Millikin and
Martins (1996) suggest that skill heterophily leads to greater coordination costs.

However, group or dyad heterophily can have a beneficial affect on group process
outcomes. In heterogeneous groups, members are likely to bring their differing
experiences and ways of knowing to the decision-making process. These differences can
impact how groups discuss and approach important issues or problems or tasks (Hoffman
& Maier, 1961; Jackson et a1., 1991). Groups that are highly heterogeneous benefit from
a greater range of outlooks and knowledge concerning issues, which in turn leads to
higher quality group outcomes. Mulliken and Martins (1996) suggest that if
heterogeneous groups find a means to get past their differences they will be able to make
the most of their differences in order to gain positive outcomes. Watson, Kuman, and

Michaelsen (1993) found that when groups are recently formed, homogenous groups are

20

more effective. But, after a few months of working together, heterogeneous groups
produced a greater range of perspectives yet were just as effective as homogenous groups
Communication Competence and Heterophily

Interpersonal competent behavior is a means to galvanize the positive outcomes
heterophily can yield. Because individuals communicating in a manner perceived as
interpersonally competent are aware and respectful of the cultural identities of their
conversational partners, individuals who perceive high levels of heterophily between self
and their conversational partner and have high self-perceptions of interpersonal
competence will generate and be exposed to a greater range of ideas and concerns than
individuals who perceive high levels of heterophily between self and their conversational
partner and have low self-perceptions of interpersonal competence. In the context of a
collaborative relationship, generation of a greater diversity of ideas should lead to greater
satisfaction. For the purpose of this study perceived heterophily will be defined as the
extent to which a conversational partner is viewed as different concerning values
associated with religion, culture, life priorities, and interpersonal preferences concerning
how to discuss issues. These particular values were selected because it is likely that these
values may have some impact on how individuals approach issues and relationships. In
the case of low heterophily, Davis (1981) found that, compared to political opinions or
opinions about matters of fact, similarity of interests and values had a greater impact on
interactant attraction. The author found that relationship between similarity and
attraction was strongest for opinions or values that provides the most information about

interactions.

21

Hypothesis 2 Graduate student liaisons who perceive high levels of heterophily
(low levels of homophily) between self and their conversational partner and have high
self-perceptions of interpersonal competence will have higher levels of conversational
satisfaction than graduate student liaisons who perceive high levels of heterophily (low
levels of homophily)between self and their conversational partner and have low self-
perceptions of interpersonal competence and graduate student liaisons who perceive low
levels of heterophily (high levels of homophily) between self and their conversational
partner.

Low competence communicators are expected to have lower levels of satisfaction
compared to competent communicators. Yet, because perceptions of homogeneity are
positively related to satisfaction, homogeneous low competence communicators should
have greater satisfaction than heterogeneous low competence dyads. Among individuals
in dyads with perceptions of lower levels of competent behavior, low heterophily, or
homogeneity, should lead to increases in satisfaction. Some researchers (Burleson &
Samter, 1996; Waldron & Applegate, 1998) have utilized the rewards of interaction
model (Berscheid, 1985) to provide a rationale for the relationship between satisfaction
and similarity. According to the rewards of interaction model, individuals enjoy
interacting with conversational partners that are similar to them. The rewards of
interaction model can also provide a rationale for why individuals taking part in
interpersonally competent behavior experience greater conversational satisfaction with
more heterogeneous partners than less heterogeneous partners. In the context of
collaboration, individuals who are motivated to take part in a co learning relationship and

are knowledgeable about the value of different opinions in a co learning relationship will

22

enjoy interacting with conversational partners that bring differing opinions, experiences,
and backgrounds to the conversation.

Hypothesis 3 Graduate student liaisons who perceive low levels of heterophily
(high levels of homophily) between self and their conversational partner and have low
self-perceptions of interpersonal competence will have higher levels of conversational
satisfaction than graduate student liaisons who perceive high levels of heterophily (low
levels of homophily) between self and their conversational partner and have low self-
perceptions of interpersonal competence but will have lower levels of conversational
satisfaction than graduate students who perceive low levels of heterophily (high levels of
homophily) between self and their conversational partner and high self-perceptions of

interpersonal competence.

23

CHAPTER 2
METHODS

Participants

Thirteen graduate students who act as a liaison between the research teams on
which they work and the communities with which they collaborate on community based
research projects served as participants. Only graduate students involved in community-
based research endeavors that focused on some aspect of human behavior were included
in the study. Only one graduate student per research team participated in the study. Only
graduate students who have communicated with a community-affiliated individual for a
minimum of 6 weeks, had a minimum of 4 conversations with this particular individual,
and has had face to face contact with this community-affiliated individual at least twice
were allowed to participate. Graduate student liaisons working in research teams
conducting community-based research in the disciplines of Children, Youth, and
Families, Applied Developmental Science, Education, Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education Communication Systems, Social Science will be solicited for participation.
These disciplines were selected because it is probable that a fair amount of graduate
students involved in community-based research are in the previously mentioned schools
and departments.
Recruitment

Initially, the names of potential participants were solicited form faculty involved
in community—based research endeavors. Also, emails and fliers were sent to individuals
in departments that conduct a good amount of community-based research (i.e.

Community Psychology and Resource Development). Unfortunately, this method of

24

soliciting participants did not yield very many responses. At the outset of data collection
individuals form Agriculture and Natural Resources Education Communication Systems
were not solicited. However, in order to increase the number of participants, individuals
from Agriculture and Natural Resources Education Communication Systems were sought
out as potential participants. Of the participants included from Agriculture and Natural
Resources Education Communication Systems, all were involved in community-based
research that involved some type of htunan behavioral element.
Design and Procedures

This study is nonexperimental in nature. Participants were asked to identify the
community-affiliated individual that serves as their main contact for the community in
their collaborative community-based research endeavor. Participants completed surveys
that asked about their perceptions of conversations that have taken place with the
community-affiliated individual that they identified as their main contact for the
community. All the study materials completed by participants were distributed in a
packet that included general instructions concerning how to decide which individual they
should refer to in the measures, the order in which to fill out the forms, and where to
return the materials after they have completed them. First the participants filled out the
Participant and Relationship Information Questionnaire. After filling out the Participant
and Relationship lnforrnation Questionnaire, half of the participants completed the Self-
Rated Competence Scale (SRC) before the Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction
Inventory; the other half will complete the Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction
Inventory before the SRC. Then participants completed the Perceived Homophily

Measure (PHM).

25

Measures

Communication Competence

Participants’ perceptions of their own competence will be assessed by the Self-
Rated Competence scale (SRC), appendix A, (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1981). The SRC was
originally developed to measure episode-specific self perceptions of communication
competence. Slight changes were made on the wording on some items and the directions
the SRC. These changes were made so that the measure would be applicable to self
perceptions of competence that are based on communicative behavior in past
conversations instead of a single conversation. Scores for negatively worded items are
reversed and all answers are added together to yield a single score. Scores on the SRC
range from 27 to 135. High scores indicate higher self perceptions of competence while

low scores are indicative of lower self perceptions of competence.

Satisfaction

Conversational satisfaction will be assessed by Hecht’s (1978) Interpersonal
Communication Satisfaction Inventory, appendix C. Changes were made on the wording
on some items and the directions so that the measure would be applicable to perceptions
of satisfaction of past conversations instead perceptions of satisfaction of a single
conversation. Scores for negatively worded items are reversed and all answers are added
together to yield a single score. Scores range from 19 to 133. High scores indicate
higher perceptions of conversational satisfaction while low scores are indicative of

perceptions of low conversational satisfaction.

26

Perceived Heterophily

Perceived heterophily/homophily will be assessed by the Perceived Homophily
Measure (PHM) (McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly, 1975), appendix B. Participants
indicate the degree to which they perceive similarity between self and their
conversational partner in social class behavior, and background. Scores for negatively
worded items are reversed and all answers are added together to yield a Single score.
Scores range from 8 to 56. Low scores indicate low homophily (high heterophily) and

high scores indicate high homophily (low heterophily).

 

Length and Type of Relationship

Participants will be given a survey (Participant and Relationship Information, see
Appendix F) that asks for information concerning the research project and length and
type of the relationship they have with their conversational partner. Length of

relationship will serve as a control variable

27

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Prior to examining the hypothesized relationships, the reliability of the scales used
to measure competence, homophily, and conversational satisfaction was assessed. The
reliability for perceived self competence], M=4.42, §Q=.37, 1* *=.82, and homophily,
M=32.69, S_D=8.89, r**=.79, was deemed adequate. After examining the inter item
correlations for the conversational satisfaction and the face validity of the items, items 3,
11, and 17 were dropped. Items 18 and 19 were dropped due to instrumentation errorz.
The resulting 14 item scale, M=79.23, S_D=13.85, r**=.91, exhibited high reliability.

The relationship between perceived self competence and satisfaction was
statistically significant, _r=.86, p<.01. The relationship was such that increases in
perceived self competence were associated with increases in perceptions of

conversational satisfaction.

 

Insert Table 2. Here

 

Using hierarchical regression, the relationship between competence and
satisfaction, partialing out the impact of the length of the relationship, was examined.
The model with length of the relationship as a predictor was statistically significant, E(1,
11)=5.90, p<.05, [2:35. The model with length of relationship and self perceived

competence as predictors of satisfaction was statistically significant, E(2, 10)=29.29,

 

' An average score for competence was calculated for each participant. Average scores were utilized for
data analysis because one respondent left one of the competence items blank.

2 On the satisfaction instrument. the items that are normally numbered 18 and 19 were combined into one
item numbered as 18. The resulting item was double-barreled and therefore uninterpretable.

28

p<.07, r_"_2=.85. The change in Q, Afl=.50, between the model with relationship length
as a predictor and the model with relationship length as predictors was statistically
significant, E(1,10)=33.67, p<.01. The beta weight for self perceived competence,
b=28.15, was statistically significant, t=5.87, p<.01. Even when the impact of
relationship length was partialled out, increases in self perceived competence were
associated with increases in satisfaction. Given the extremely small sample size, effect
sizes were not calculated because the estimates would not have been stable and would
therefore be meaningless.

The hypothesized interaction between self perceived competence and homophily,
was examined by way of regression. The beta weight for the interaction, l_)=-1.47, was
not statistically significant, t=-1.31, p=.22. Given that the interaction is not statistically
significant and the sample size is very small, little confidence should be placed in the

direction of the interaction.

 

Insert Table 3. Here

 

29

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

Because of its extremely small sample size, the usefulness of this preliminary
study lies not so much in the findings but in the lessons learned from the process of
recruiting participants. The small sample means one should place little confidence in the
findings. However, some aspects of the data, specifically the restricted range of self
perceived competence, have implications for how competence may be better measured in
subsequent studies.

Limitations

The results of the inferential statistical manipulations performed in the
preliminary study are unstable due to the small sample size. Regardless of whether the
analyses yielded a statistically significant result, none of the reported results can, with
any confidence, be interpreted as supporting the proposed hypotheses. The estimations of
sampling error, specifically the standard error, are not stable. Use of the standard error as
an estimate of sampling error is based on the central limit theorem. However, for the
central limit theorem to hold, a minimum number of observations are necessary. Given
that the number of observations in the data set were below this minimum number, little
confidence can be placed in the stability of the estimates of error utilized in the analyses.
Implications for Recruitment

The problem of low sample size is a direct outcome of the unanticipated difficulty
in recruiting participants who met the narrowly defined requirements for prospective

participants. There are simply a small number of graduate students participating in

30

community-based research on the campus of Michigan State University. Among this
small group of graduate students involved in community-based research, some have yet
to or may never have direct contact with the community in which they conduct research.
Also, in my communications with potential participants I discovered that even if a student
has communicated with the community in some manner it was not in the context of a
long-term (i.e. 3 months or more) collaborative relationship.

The issue of participant recruitment can be alleviated in 3 ways. First,
collaborative university-community efforts takes place in contexts other than research.
Other university outreach activities that involve collaboration between some agent of the
university and a community may be an additional context that could be considered, such
as service learning. While there are likely to be some differences in the dynamic of
community-university collaborations between the contexts of research and non research
oriented outreach, it is possible that the hypothesized relationship among self perceived
competence, homophily, and conversational satisfaction is functionally equivalent
between the two groups. This is an empirical question that can be addressed in
subsequent research. Another way to increase the number of eligible participants is to
include university-affiliated individuals other than graduate students. While in some
situations graduate students may serve as a primary contact between a research team and
the community, in other situations faculty may serve in this capacity. By expanding the
criterion for potential participant to include university affiliated individuals involved in
university-community collaborative outreach endeavors and contexts beyond research,

the number potential participants and the generalizability of any potential findings will

31

increase drastically. Also, recruiting participants from other universities will further
expand the number of eligible participants.
Implications for Methodology

A preexisting measure of self perceived competence was utilized for the purpose
of this study. The measure, which was initially intended to assess self perceived
competence for a single conversation, was altered so that it could be applicable to
perceptions of competence that are the result of multiple conversations over a period of
time. While, after altering the items, most of the items were consistent with molar
impressions of competence formed over a series of conversation (e. g. “I was a likable
person”; “I was respectful”). Other items were still consistent with more molecular
notions of competence that are likely to vary from conversation to conversation or may
not be remembered over a series of conversations (e. g. “My facial expressions were
abnormally blank and restrained”). Individuals’ evaluations of competence become
increasingly molar over time (Spitzberg, 1984). It is likely that over several months of
interaction, individuals involved in long term collaborative relationships have perceptions
of competence that are not fully captured by more molecular items in the scale.
Subsequent investigations of the posited relationships put forth in this paper should
attempt to construct a measure of competence that more closely taps into the perceptions
of competence that are formed over a series of conversations.

For this study, only self perceived competence was measured. While self
perceived competence ratings tend to be inflated, they are usually highly correlated with
other rated competence (Spitzberg, 1984). For this study, average competence scores

could range from 1 to 5 and the mean score was 4.42. While it is likely that participants

32

provided inflated ratings of self perceived competence, the range of competence ratings
was extremely limited, range=1.11. Given the possibly inflated competence scores and
restricted range, future investigation of these hypotheses should solicit competence
evaluations from both parties of the dyad. Perceptions of others’ competence are likely
to yield a less biased, more informative set of responses.
Conclusion

While this study provides very little insight on the hypotheses, the lessons learned
in the process of conducting this preliminary study provides valuable insights on how to
better measure communication competence in the context of long term collaborative
relationships. Also, logistical barriers that were not apparent at the outset of the study
require an expansion of the potential participant criterion. Beyond increasing the number
of potential participants, expanding the focus of the study beyond the context of
university-community community based research collaborations may yield more

interesting and possibly generalizable findings.

33

APPENDICES

34

NNNNNNNNt—Iu—fit—bl—dr—it—It—Ot—Iv—it—I
\rcnuipuNuOOoo<0xmt>w-o§°9°>lgffiPPNf

APPENDIX A

SELF -RATED COMPETENCE (SRC)

 

1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE Regarding

2 = MILDLY DISAGREE YOUR general behavior
3 = UNDECIDED in past conversations

4 = MILDLY AGREE with

5 = STRONGLY AGREE (conversational partner)

Iwas relaxed and comfortable when speaking.
I was a likable person.

I expressed myself clearly.

I gave positive feedback.

I was trustworthy.

I was assertive.

I was a good listener.

I was supportive.

I showed an interest in our conversations.

. I was sarcastic

. I was awkward in our conversations.

. I was socially skilled

. I was confident

. I found it difficult to express my true feelings
. I ignored the other person’s feelings.

. I lacked self-confidence.

. I was an effective conversationalist.

. I talked too much about myself.

. I pretended to listen when I actually didn’t.

. I was shy.

. I was nervous during our conversations.

. My facial expressions were abnormally blank and restrained.
. I was a competent communicator.

. I was respectful.

. I interrupted too much.

. I understood the other person.

. I was sensitive to the needs and feelings of the other person.

35

APPENDIX B
PERCEIV ED HOMOPHILY MEASURE (PHM)

On the scale below, please indicate your feelings about
. Circle the number that best represents your

 

(main community contact)
feelings . Numbers”1” and “7” indicate a very strong feeling. Numbers “2” and “6”
indicate a strong feeling. Numbers “3” and “5” indicate a fairly weak feeling. Number
“4” indicates your are undecided or don’t know. Please work quickly. There are no right
or wrong answers.

1. Doesn’t think like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thinks like me

2. From social class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 From social class
similar to mine different from mine
3. Behaves like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn’t behave like me
4. Economic situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Economic Situation like
different from mine mine
5. Similar to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Different from me
6. Status like mine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Status different fi'om mine
7. Unlike me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like me

8. Background different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Background similar to mine
from mine

36

APPENDIX C
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION INVENTORY

Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree that each statement describes
your past conversations with . The 4 or middle position on the scale
represents “undecided” or “neutral”, then moving out from the center, “slight” agreement
or disagreement, then “moderate”, then “strong” agreement or disagreement.

For example, if you strongly agree with the following statement you would circle 1;
The other person moved around a lot.

Agreezl:2:3:4:5:6:7:Disagree

The other person let me know that I was communicating effectively.

Nothing was accomplished.

I would like to have more conversations like the ones I have with my partner.

The other person genuinely wanted to get to know me.

I have been very dissatisfied with our conversations.

I generally had something else to do.

I felt that during our conversations I was able to present myself as I wanted the

other person to view me.

8. The other person showed me that he/she understood what I said.

9. I was very satisfied with our conversations.

10. The other person expressed a lot of interest in what I had to say.

11. I did Nfl enjoy our conversations.

12. The other person did _N_(_)I provide support for what he/she was saying.

13. I felt I could talk about anything with the other person.

14. We each got to say what we wanted.

15. I felt that we could laugh easily together.

16. In general, our conversations flowed smoothly.

17. The other person changed the topic when his/her feelings were brought into our
conversations.

18. The other person frequently said things which added little to our conversations.

In general, we talked about things I was N_O_I interested in.

$999959!“

37

APPENDIX D
PARTICIPANT AND RELATIONSHIP
INFORMATION

Research Project

 

What is your role in the research proj ect/collaboration?

 

 

Indicate the conversational partner that you have referred to in the previous
questionnaires:

 

How is this person affiliated with the community?

 

 

 

Indicate approximately how long you have been acquainted with this person
(In years and months)

years and months

What relationship category best describes the relationship to the conversational partner
you have referred to in the previous questionnaires:

[ ] acquaintance

[ ] friend

[ ] close friend

[ ] other, please describe

 

 

 

38

REFERENCES

Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Herrrnann, R. K. (1999). Images and affect:
A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(1), 78-93.

Altman, D. G. (1995). Sustaining interventions in community systems: On the
relationship between researchers and communities. Health Psychology, 14(6), 526-536.

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Communication motives of assertive
and responsive communicators. Communication Research Reports, 12(2), 186-191.

Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds),
Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed., Vol 2, pp 413-484).

Billington, R. J ., Washington, L. A., & Trickett, E. J. (1981). The research
relationship in community research: An inside view from public school principals.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 461-479.

Buhrrnester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five
domains of interpersonal competence in peer relations. J ourngl of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 991-1008.

Burleson, B. R., & Denton, W. H. (1992). A new look at similarity and attraction
in marriage: Similarities in social-cognitive and communication skills as predictors of
attraction and satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 59, 268-287.

Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of
young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationship satisfaction.
Communication Reports, 9(2), 127-139.

Caplan, N., & Nelson, S. D. (1973). On being useful: The nature and
consequences of psychological research on social problems. American Psychologist, 28,
199-211.

Casto, R. M., Harsh, S. A., & Cunningham, L. L. (1998). Shifting the paradigm
for interprofessional education at the Ohio State University and beyond. In J. McCroskey
and S. D. Einbinder (Eds), Universities and communities: Remaking professional and
interprofessional education for the next century (pp. 54-64). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Chavis, D. M., Stucky, P. E., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Returning basic research
to the community: A relationship between scientist and citizen. American
Psychologist, 38, 424-434.

Chen, G., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A
synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353-383.

39

Chibucos, T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (1999). Serving children and families through
community-university partnerships: A view of the issues. In T. R. Chibucos and R. M.
Lerner (Eds), Serving children and families through community-university partnerships:
Success stories (pp 1-12). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Chibucos, T. R., & Lerner, R. M. (1999). Serving children and families through
community-university partnerships: Success stories. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

 

Davis, D. (1981). Implications for interaction versus effectance as mediators of
the similarity-attraction relationship. Journal of Experimergal Social Psychology, 17, 96-
116.

Davis, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal

complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3),
592-603.

Duran, R. L. (1983). Communicative adaptability: A measure of social
communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 320-326.

Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., Lance, C. E. (1999). Motivational bases
of affective organizational commitment: A partial test of an integrative theoretical
model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 463-483.

Eadie, W. G., & Paulson, J. W. (1984). Communicator attitudes, communicator

style, and communication competence. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48,
390-407.

Foley, E. M. (1998). Lessons learned: A three-year project to advance
interprofessional education in nine universities. In J. McCroskey and S. D. Einbinder
(Eds), Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional
education for the next century (pp. 221-228). Westport, CT: Praeger.

 

 

Goodall, H. L., Jr. (1982). Organizational communication competence: The
development of an industrial simulation to teach adaptive skills. Communication

Quarterly, 30, 282-295.

Harkavy, I. (1996). Urban University-Community partnerships: Why now and
what could (should) be next? Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(2), 8-14.

Hecht, M. L. (1978). Measures of communication satisfaction. Human
Communication ResearclL_4, 350-368.

 

Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal
communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253-264.

40

Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem
solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 62(2), 401-407.

 

 

Holt, R. W. (1982). Perceptions of the equity and exchange processes in dyadic
social relationships. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 303-320.

Hubbert, K. N., Gudykunst, W. B., & Guerrero, S. L. (1999). Intergroup
communication over time. lntemational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(1), 13-46.

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F ., Sessa, V. 1., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin,
K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group

heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(5), 675-689.

 

Josephson, E. (1970). Resistance to community surveys. Social Problems, 19,
117-129.

 

Kelly, J. G. (1986). Context and process: An ecological view of the
interdependence of practice and research. American Journal of Community Psychology,
_1_4_(6), 581-589.

Larson, C. E., Backlund, P., Redmond, M., & Barbour, A. (1978). Assessing
functional communication. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Lerner, R. M., & Simon, L. A. K. (1998). Directions for the American outreach
university in the twenty-first century. In R. M. Lerner and L. A. K. Simon (Eds),
University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century: Outreach scholarship
for youth and families (pp. 463-481). New York: Garland.

 

Lerner, R. M., & Simon, L. A. K. (1998). The new American outreach university:
Challenges and options. In R. M. Lerner and L. A. K. Simon (Eds), Universig-
community collaborations for the twenty-first century: Outreach scholarship for youth
and families (pp. 3-24). New York: Garland.

 

Lerner, R. M., & Simon, L. A. K. (1998). University-community collaborations
for the twenty-first century: Outreach scholarship for youth and families. New York:
Garland.

 

Lerner, R. M., Simon, L. A. K., & Mitchell, D. B. (1998). Creating outreach
universities: Challenges and choices. In J. McCroskey and S. D. Einbinder (Eds),
Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education
for the next century (pp. 268-282). Westport, CT: Praeger.

41

Marshall, A. A., & Stohl, C. (1993). Participating as participation: A network
approach. Communication Monographs, 60, 137-157.

Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1995). Roommate similarity: Are roommates
who are similar in their communication traits more satisfied? Communication Research

Reports, 12(1), 46-52.

 

McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A
research and pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31, 1-7.

McCroskey, J. C ., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: A
cognitive view. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 19-37.

Milliken, F. J ., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads:
Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of
Management Review, 21 (2), 402-433.

Mueller, C. W., Finley, A., Iverson, R. D., & Price, J. L. (1999). The effects of
group racial composition on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career
commitment: The case of teachers. Work and Occupation_s, 26(2), 187-219.

Myers-Walls, J. A. (2000). An odd couple with promise: Research and
practitioners in Evaluation Settings. Family Relations, 49, 341-347.

 

New, K. M., & Hassler, R. M. (1973). Community researchers meet community
residents: Interpretation of findings. Human Organization, 32, 243-255.

Parks, M. R. (1994). Communicative competence and interpersonal control. In M.
L. Knapp, & G. R. Miller (Eds), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 589-
618). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Proshansky, P. M. (1972). For what are we training our graduate students?
American Psychologist, 27, 205-212.

Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of
interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11, 33-44.

Sarason, S. B. (1976). Community psychology, networks, and Mr. Everyman.
American Psychologist, , 317-328.

Schensul, J. J. (1999). Organizing community research partnerships in the
struggle against AIDS. Health Education and Behavior, 26(2), 266-283.

Smith, A. B., & Dannison, L. L. (1999). Skipped generation parents: Building
collaborative partnerships to support custodial grandparents. In T. R. Chibucos and R. M.

42

Lerner (Eds), Serving children and families through community-university partnerships:
Success stories (pp 225-230). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived
effectiveness. In C. H. Tardy (Ed), A handbook for the study of human communication
(pp. 57-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Spitzberg, B. H. (1991 ). An examination of trait measures of interpersonal
competence. Communication Reports, 4(1), 22-29.

 

Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of (in)competence. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10, 137-158.

 

 

Spitzberg, B. H. (1997). A user’s guide to Spitzberg and colleagues’ relational
competence and related measures. Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State University.

Spitzberg, B. H. (in press). Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In J. O.
Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds), The handbook of communication and social interaction
skills. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Brunner, C. C. (1991). Toward a theoretical integration of
context and competence inference research. Western Journal of Speech Communication,
_5_§, 28-46.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal
competence research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (in press). Interpersonal skills. In M. L.
Knapp & J. Daly (Eds), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). A component model of relational
competence. Human Communication Research, 10(4), 575-599.

Spoth, R., & Molgaar, V. (1999). Project family: A partnership integrating
research with the practice of promoting family and youth competencies. In T. R.
Chibucos and R. M. Lerner (Eds), Servingchildren and families through community-
university partnerships: Success stories (pp 127-138). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

43

Tyler, F. B., Pargament, K. I., & Gatz, M. (1983). The resource collaborator role:
A model for interactions involving psychologists. American Psychologist, 38, 388-398.

Votruba, J. C. (1996). Strengthening the university’s alignment with society:
Challenges and strategies. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1( 1), 29-36.

Waldron, V. R., & Applegate, J. L. (1998). Similarity in the use of person-
centered tactics: Effects on social attraction and persuasiveness in dyadic verbal
disagreements. Communication Reports, 11(2), 155-165.

 

Walshok, M. L. (1995). Knowledge without boundaries: What America’s
research universities can do for the economy, the workplace, and the community. San
Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s
impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse
task groups. Academy of Management Journal,36(3), 590-602.

 

Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in
communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 185-199.

44

Figge 1. Model of collaborative relationship maintenance, interpersonal competence, and
heterophily.

45

 

 

Interpersonal
Competence

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfaction

 

 

 

Perceived
Heterophily

 

 

46

 

Figure 2. Predicted competence by heterophily interaction

47

 

 

Hi

Satisfaction

Lo

 

 

+ Lo Hetero
- I - Hi Hetero

 

 

 

 

Lo Compt

Hi Compt

 

48

 

Table 1. Predicted competence by heterophily interaction

49

 

Low Interpersonal
Competence

High Interpersonal
Competence

 

Moderate conversational

Moderate conversational

 

 

Low satisfaction satisfaction
Heterophily (less than high (greater than low
competence/low heterophily) competence/low heterophily)
High Lowest conversational Greatest conversational
Heterophily satisfaction satisfaction

 

 

 

50

 

Table 2. Correlations between competence, homophily, length of relationship and
satisfaction

51

Correlations Between Competence, Homophily, Length of Relationship and Satisfaction

 

Self Perceived Homophily Length of Conversatonal
Competence Relationship Satisfaction

Self Perceived

Competence

Homophily .16

Length of .31 .18

Relationship

Conversational .86** .1 l .59*

Satisfaction

 

*p<.05. **p<.001

52

Table 3. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variable predicting satisfaction

53

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variable Predicting Satisfaption

(N=l3)

 

 

Variable B .13. _B I3
Step 1
Competence 32.53 6.14 .87*
Homophily -.05 .25 -.03
Step 2
Competence 75.30 33.13 2.00
Homophily 6.77 5.20 4.35
Comptence -l .47 1.12 -4.70
X Homophily

 

Note. IQ; = .86 for Step 1; ARC; = .02 for Step 2, r_i._s.
*p<.01.

54