7Instructor Immediacy
Abstract: One of the most closely examined constructs in the instructional communication research area, instructor immediacy consists of both verbal and nonverbal expressions that elicit perceptions of interpersonal closeness between communicators. When employed during instruction, immediacy cues enhance the teacher-student relationship by communicating affiliation, liking, and interpersonal connection, which in turn are associated with student learning, motivation, and satisfaction with the teacher and course. In this chapter we survey various theoretical explanations for how and why immediacy works, and we review the essential findings of immediacy research, with an emphasis on specific associations with student learning. We conclude by focusing on the importance of cultural variability in future research.
Keywords: immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, verbal immediacy, teacher-student relationship, affective learning, student affect, cognitive learning, approach-avoidance theory, immediacy-exchange theories, motivation, Mehrabian
As one of the most influential communication behaviors enacted by classroom teachers, instructor immediacy has received more scholarly attention than most other constructs in the field of instructional communication (Witt, Schrodt, & Turman, 2010; Zhang, Oetzel, Gao, Wilcox, & Takai, 2007a). Conceptualized by psychologist Albert Mehrabian (1966, 1967), immediacy is a cluster of verbal and nonverbal communication cues that enhance closeness and reduce physical and/or psychological distance between communicators. Mehrabian grounded his research in approach-avoidance theory, the notion that “people are drawn toward persons and things they like, evaluate highly, and prefer, and they avoid or move away from things they dislike, evaluate negatively, or do not prefer” (Mehrabian, 1972, p. 1). He identified immediacy cues as those verbal and nonverbal behaviors that evoke the perception of psychological closeness by expressing interpersonal liking and increasing sensory stimulation between communicators (Mehrabian, 1969, 1972), including teachers and students (Andersen, 1979).
Mehrabian’s earliest research focused on verbal or linguistic immediacy (Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003), which he defined as the “degree of directness and intensity of interaction between communicator and referent in a communicator’s linguistic message” (Mehrabian, 1966, p. 28). Thus, verbal immediacy refers to the use of linguistic codes to reduce psychological distance between communicators. His taxonomy of verbal immediacy cues includes distance (e.g., here vs. there), duration (e.g., longer contact vs. shorter contact), and participation (e.g., you should vs. some should), among others. In addition to verbal expressions of immediacy, Mehrabian (1971) acknowledged the impact of nonverbal behaviors such as proximity, touch, and eye gaze. His pioneering research on nonverbal immediacy blazed a promising path for instructional communication scholars, as they examined these specific communication behaviors used by teachers while delivering classroom instruction.
Andersen (1979) was the first to examine the construct of nonverbal immediacy in classroom communication. She operationalized instructor nonverbal immediacy cues as smiles, eye contact, forward body leans, gestures, relaxed body position, appropriate touch, and moving around the classroom while teaching. Andersen’s findings indicated a significant relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and student affective learning. Her research ignited the immediacy research engine in instructional communication, and more than 250 immediacy studies were conducted in subsequent decades, documenting positive correlations between nonverbal immediacy and affective and cognitive learning (e.g., Christophel, 1990; Witt & Wheeless, 2001), motivation to learn (e.g., Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1994), perceived instructor credibility (e.g., Santilli, Miller, & Katt, 2011; Zhang, 2009), and students’ evaluation of instructors (e.g., McCroskey, Richmond, Sallinen, Fayer, & Barraclough, 1995).
Gorham (1988) provided a milestone in the development of this research by introducing verbal component in the operationalization of instructor immediacy. She found that the use of personal examples, self-disclosure, humor, and praise particularly enhanced perceived closeness between instructors and students. Though these items did not fully represent Mehrabian’s (1969) original conceptualization of verbal immediacy, Gorham’s innovative work was followed by an avalanche of instructor immediacy studies that combined verbal and nonverbal measures. Despite persistent criticism of the verbal immediacy measure, this body of work identified instructor immediacy as a core component of effective instructor communication behaviors, playing a crucial role in enhancing student learning and a host of other positive outcomes (Christophel, 1990; Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b).
In this chapter we examine the construct of instructor immediacy in four sections. First, we address relevant theories and theoretical models that help explain how immediacy functions in the classroom. Second, we review essential research findings that demonstrate a wide range of associations between instructor immediacy and other important classroom variables. Third, we discuss some significant challenges with instructor immediacy research methodology and measurement. Finally, we explore directions for future research programs that will expand our understanding of instructor immediacy and student outcomes.
Theoretical Explanations for Instructor Immediacy
In early conceptualizations of interpersonal immediacy, Mehrabian (1969) explained the construct using the tenets of approach-avoidance theory; i.e., in the presence of cues that enhance closeness to and nonverbal interactions with others, individuals express or achieve an interpersonal connection that engenders affinity, approval, and co-identification (see also Berscheid & Walster, 1978). These explanatory mechanisms help explain why instructors who wish to express appropriate classroom relationships with their students frequently use verbal and nonverbal immediacy cues that add affective or relational components to the instructional content of their teaching messages. In addition to these early theoretical foundations, scholars have applied other interpersonal communication theories to explain instructor immediacy. In this section we briefly examine three immediacy-exchange theories and four explanatory models of immediacy and learning.
Immediacy-Exchange Theories
Immediacy-exchange theories began five decades ago with Argyle and Dean’s (1965) affiliative conflict theory, often referred to as equilibrium theory, which posited that communicators establish and maintain a comfortable intimacy equilibrium point in communication. When the equilibrium level is either not met or exceeded, interaction partners experience anxiety, which generates a compensatory response. As a primogenitor for immediacy-exchange research, affiliative conflict theory, despite its problems in accurately predicting compensation, prompted subsequent theoretical endeavors to explore the patterns of communicating immediacy in human relationships (Andersen, Guerrero, Buller, & Jorgensen 1998).
Expectancy violations theory
Burgoon (1978) originally designed expectancy violations theory (EVT) to account for nonverbal proxemic violations but later expanded the theory to include violations in other types of nonverbal behaviors (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Le Poire & Burgoon, 1994). The theoretical framework began with the central assumption that communicators develop expectancies and preferences about the nonverbal behaviors of others during interpersonal interaction (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Expectancies include “cognitive, affective, and conative components and are primarily a function of (1) social norms and (2) known idiosyncracies [sic] of the other … They include judgments of what behaviors are possible, feasible, appropriate, and typical for a particular setting, purpose, and set of participants” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p. 60).
Culturally-bound, norm-based, and individually specific expectancies operate within a range rather than representing specific behaviors because social norms and personal idiosyncrasies themselves usually imply some degree of variability rather than preciseness. The range implies a threshold. If communicators conform to expectancies, or if violations of expectancies fall within the socially tolerated range of variability, arousal will not occur. However, if violations fall outside the range of expectancies, arousal may be evoked.
Applied to immediacy cues and perceptions, EVT suggests that unexpectedly high levels of immediacy from low-reward communicators may lead to counterproductive results: the greater the deviation from the expectation, the greater the negative consequences. However, for rewarding violators, EVT proposes that moderate levels of immediacy-induced arousal change may produce moderate levels of reciprocity, whereas higher levels of immediacy-induced arousal change may lead to higher levels of reciprocity. Thus, a rewarding violator may gain a more favorable image through violation, whereas a non-rewarding violator may end up with an even more negative image through violation (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989).
EVT has been incorporated into instructor immediacy research. A substantial body of literature indicates that instructor immediacy cues are generally positively evaluated and associated with positive learning outcomes (Andersen, 1979; Christophel, 1990; Gorham, 1988; Witt et al., 2004; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b). Given that EVT addresses the central role of culture in interpreting and evaluating immediacy cues, it has been applied to cross-cultural studies of instructor immediacy. As McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, and Barraclough (1996) observed:
In highly immediate cultures the expectations for immediate instructor behavior are very high and violations of those expectations by being less immediate may be very detrimental to cognitive learning. On the other hand, in less immediate cultures where expectations for immediacy are low, the violation of these expectations by being more immediate may have strong effects on cognitive learning. (p. 210)
Similarly, Zhang and Oetzel (2006b) applied the EVT tenets to guide their exploration of instructor immediacy from a Chinese cultural perspective. They found that the Chinese conceptualization of instructor immediacy as integrating instructional, relational, and personal behavioral cues is different from the Western perspective focusing on instructional behavioral cues.
Discrepancy-arousal theory
Like EVT, discrepancy-arousal theory (DAT) postulates that immediacy changes activate arousal (Cappella & Greene, 1982). DAT argues that discrepancies between a receiver’s cognitive expectations and the partner’s actual level of immediacy or involvement produce arousal (Cappella & Greene, 1982, 1984). Discrepancy is the extent to which the actual immediacy behaviors deviate from the standard level or the expectation level (Hale & Burgoon, 1984).
DAT assumes that communicators have a latitude of acceptance for deviations. Communicators’ acceptance region or expectation level is primarily determined by social norms, cultural features, and individual preferences (Cappella, 1999; Cappella & Greene, 1982; Hale & Burgoon, 1984). Cappella and Greene (1982) argued:
When the other’s behavior is sufficiently discrepant from expectation to be outside of the acceptance region, that behavior will be highly arousing, experienced as affectively negative, and avoidance will ensue. When the discrepancy is within the acceptance region, the behavior will be only mildly or moderately arousing, experienced as affectively positive, and approach will ensue. (p. 100)
DAT posits that moderate immediacy-induced arousal change leads to approach, reciprocity, positive affect, and positive behavioral responses, but high levels of immediacy-induced arousal change results in avoidance, compensation, negative affect, stress, fear, and negative behavioral responses. Cappella and Greene (1982) stated: “Little or no discrepancy is assumed to be nonarousing, moderate discrepancy to be moderately arousing and therefore pleasurable, and excessive discrepancy to be highly arousing and unpleasant” (pp. 96–97).
Based on DAT, Kelly and Gorham (1988) posited the arousal model concerning the relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning. They carried out an experiment to test a four-step model linking nonverbal immediacy (operationalized as physical proximity and frequency of eye contact) to cognitive learning (operationalized as short-term recall): “Immediacy is related to arousal, which is related to attention, which is related to memory, which is related to cognitive learning. The presence or absence of affect is extraneous to this model” (Kelly & Gorham, 1988, p. 201). They found that high physical proximity with eye contact had the highest scores in short-term recall, and low physical proximity with no eye contact the lowest scores.
Cognitive valence theory
Another theory that scholars have used to frame instructor immediacy research is cognitive valence theory (CVT). The central construct of CVT, formerly referred to as arousal valence theory (Andersen, 1985), is cognitive schema (Andersen, 1998). A schema is a knowledge structure about a particular domain. People develop “cognitive structures called schemata or expectancies that permit people to anticipate, interpret, explain, or act upon information about oneself and the social environment” (Andersen, 1998, p. 47).
CVT argues that when an immediacy increase causes an arousal increase, cognitive schemata are activated. There are at least six types of cognitive schemata: cultural, self, interpersonal, relational, situational, and state. Cultural schemata or cultural norms and rules are the most basic force determining one’s reactions to increased immediacy and arousal, which also shape and mold other schemata. Self schemata deal with personal traits and communication predispositions, such as extroversion and communication shyness. Interpersonal schemata focus on the perceived qualities of the other individuals, and relational schemata focus on the dyad and the relationship called we-ness. Situational schemata are the structured intuitive knowledge of the context, and state schemata focus on a person’s transitory psychological, physical, or emotional state (Andersen, 1998, 1999).
CVT suggests that when an immediacy increase is perceived by a receiver, an arousal increase is evoked, which will activate cognitive schemata regarding the message’s cultural appropriateness, personal predispositions, interpersonal valence, relational appropriateness, situational appropriateness, and psychological state. According to CVT,
If all relevant cognitive schemata are positively valenced, positive relational outcomes occur. However, if any of the six cognitive schemata described are negatively valenced, negative relational outcomes will occur. This model suggests that during an interaction, increased intimacy must be culturally, personally, relationally, and situationally appropriate while fitting the personal predispositions and transitory state of the other in order to produce a positive relational outcomes. (Andersen, 1998, p. 40)
CVT argues that large arousal increases circumvent cognitive processes because “at very high arousal levels cognitive processes are short-circuited” (Andersen, 1998, p. 47). Thus, large arousal increases are inherently aversive, unpleasant, and stressful, and they lead to negative reactions, compensation, immediacy reduction, and a decrease in relational closeness. By contrast, small arousal increases lead to little or no effect, and moderate or mild arousal increases stimulate cognitive processes, produce reciprocity, positive responses, interest, excitement, and activation (Andersen, 1998).
Comstock, Rowell, and Bowers (1995) applied CVT and DAT in their experimental research and observed an inverse curvilinear relationship between instructor immediacy and cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. For the participants in their study, moderately high instructor immediacy led to greater student learning than did excessively low or high immediacy, presumably because over-arousal is inherently aversive and actually attenuates student learning.
Theoretical Models of Immediacy and Learning
In addition to applying immediacy-exchange theories to immediacy research, scholars have also constructed and tested four distinct theoretical models of immediacy and learning: the learning model (Andersen, 1979), the motivation model (Christophel, 1990; Frymier, 1994), the affective learning model (Rodríguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996), and the integrating model (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b; Zhang, Oetzel, Gao, Wilcox, & Takai, 2007b). Although researchers have found support for each of these theoretical models, none of the models has emerged as the primary or most accurate description of immediacy and learning. We present them here in chronological order of their development.
The learning model
Andersen (1979) posited a direct, linear, and causal relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and student learning. This model proposes that instructors’ nonverbal immediacy cues directly affect student learning without any mediating factors. The effects of instructor nonverbal immediacy have been shown to be more pronounced in relation to affective learning, but meta-analysis has documented a small but significant association with cognitive learning as well (Witt et al., 2004).
The motivation model
Christophel was the first to posit an indirect linear relationship between instructor immediacy and student cognitive and affective learning, which is mediated by students’ state motivation to learn (Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Frymier, 1994). This model argues that students’ state motivation to learn functions as the central causal mediator between instructor immediacy and student learning. That is, immediate teachers cause higher motivation in students, which in turn enhances students’ affective and cognitive learning.
The affective learning model
Rodríguez et al. (1996) posited an indirect linear relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning, which is mediated by student affective learning rather than student state motivation. This model argues that cognitive learning is the ultimate end and that affective learning is only a means to the end. Immediate teachers evoke positive relational feelings from their students (i.e., affect for the teacher) and/ or positive feelings toward the subject matter, which in turn enhances greater cognitive learning. Support for the affective learning model was obtained through meta-analysis (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006).
The integrating model
Based on the above three models generated from American college classrooms, Zhang and Oetzel (2006b) proposed the integrating model, which essentially incorporates the three earlier models. The integrating model posits that instructor immediacy has both a direct path and an indirect path mediated through affective learning and motivation to cognitive learning. Zhang and Oetzel argued that, theoretically and empirically, affective learning and state motivation are two different constructs, although they are highly correlated in the educational setting. They proposed that instructor immediacy first increases students’ affect for the course and the instructor, the positive affect then motivates students to take actions to learn, and the stimulation finally leads to increased cognitive learning. In this model, both affective learning and state motivation are causal mediators between immediacy and cognitive learning.
Rodríguez et al. (1996) contended that the affective learning model is superior to the motivation model theoretically and statistically because it offers a more relevant and parsimonious theoretical explanation of immediacy-learning relationship, and it produces less statistical error. In their cross-cultural test of the three U.S.based immediacy-learning models in Chinese classrooms, Zhang and Oetzel (2006b) found that the affective learning model has the best fit among the three models. Zhang and colleagues (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b; Zhang et al., 2007b) also found that the integrating model has a better fit than the affective learning model. Clearly, then, determining the exact functions and effects of instructors’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy cues is a complex process, and the immediacy research area is ripe for further model testing and theory development.
Essential Findings from Instructor Immediacy Research
Instructor Nonverbal Immediacy
Scholars have categorized nonverbal communication cues into proxemics (physical closeness), haptics (physical touch), vocalics (vocal variety and expressiveness), kinesics (posture and facial/body movement), oculesics (eye behavior), and chronemics (time-related behaviors). When employed in the classroom, each of these types of cues may contribute to perceptions of instructor immediacy, but to differing degrees (Andersen & Andersen, 1982). The most prominent nonverbal immediacy cues used by instructors in the classroom pertain to smiles, eye gaze, gestures, relaxed body position, forward body leans, proximity, as well as vocal variety and expressiveness regarding tone, volume, pitch, volume, and rate (Andersen, 1979; McCroskey, Fayer, Richmond, Sallinen, & Barraclough, 1996; Myers, Zhong, & Guan, 1998; Neuliep, 1997; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990; Witt et al., 2010).
The affective content of an interpersonal message is often carried by the nonverbal cues that accompany a verbal message. Thus, when students observe their teachers incorporating such nonverbal cues during classroom instruction, they report a number of positive perceptions. For example, students’ perceptions of instructor nonverbal immediacy are positively associated with affective learning (Andersen, 1979; Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel, 1990; Comstock et al., 1995; Martin & Mottet, 2011; McCroskey, Fayer, et al., 1996; Pogue & Ahyun, 2006; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990; Witt & Wheeless, 2001; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b), cognitive learning (Allen et al., 2006; Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel, 1990; Comstock et al., 1995; McCroskey, Sallinen, et al., 1996; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Witt & Wheeless, 2001), behavioral learning (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Comstock et al., 1995; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990), and motivation to learn (Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Frymier, 1994; Hsu, 2010; Pogue & Ahyun, 2006; Zhang & Sapp, 2008). The positive relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and learning outcomes was evaluated in a meta-analysis of 81 immediacy-learning studies (Witt et al., 2004). The average relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and overall affective learning (i.e., affect for teacher and course) was .49; the relationship with perceived learning (i.e., students’ self-assessments of learning) was .51; and the relationship with cognitive learning (i.e., test grades, course grades, cognitive performance) was .17. Given that nonverbal cues often carry the affective, emotional, or relational components of interpersonal messages, it stands to reason that the association of nonverbal immediacy cues would be highest in perceptual outcome variables such as affect for the teacher, as opposed to measurable cognitive tasks such as performance on an exam.
In addition to the key outcome variables of learning and motivation, instructor nonverbal immediacy is positively associated with a wide range of instructor, student, and classroom variables, such as perceived instructor credibility (Santilli et al., 2011; Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011; Zhang, 2009), clarity (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Powell & Harville, 1990; Zhang & Huang, 2008), and socio-communicative style (Thomas, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1994). Instructor nonverbal immediacy has a negative relationship with instructor misbehavior (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1996; Zhang, 2007). It is positively associated with instructor-student out-of-class communication (Fusani, 1994; Jaasma & Koper, 1999, 2002; Zhang, 2006), students’ perceived understanding (Finn & Schrodt, 2012), students’ evaluation of instructors (McCroskey et al., 1995), interactional fairness (Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2012), and students’ perceptions of being mentored (Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2015). In addition, instructor nonverbal immediacy is positively associated with student compliance (Burroughs, 2007), student intent to persist in college (Witt, Schrodt, Wheeless, & Bryand, 2014), arousal and sensory stimulation (Andersen & Andersen, 1982), but inversely correlated with student resistance (Burroughs, 2007), challenge behavior (Goodboy & Myers, 2009), classroom communication apprehension (Zhang, 2005; Zhang et al., 2007b), and incivility (Miller, Katt, Brown, & Sivo, 2014). Taken together, this body of research highlights the strategic role of instructor nonverbal immediacy in teaching-learning processes in the typical classroom.
In their ongoing research programs investigating classroom immediacy, scholars have detected some moderating effects for instructor nonverbal immediacy. For example, the presence of instructor immediacy cues may moderate the effects of perceived instructor credibility, perceived caring, and instructor clarity as they influence student learning outcomes (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007; Zhang, 2009). Comadena et al. (2007) found that instructor nonverbal immediacy and caring interact to influence student motivation. Immediacy also moderates the effects of different levels of instructional technology use on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility (Witt & Schrodt, 2006). Students’ perceptions of nonverbal immediacy were found to interact with the curvilinear effects of expected technology use to influence their perceptions of instructor credibility (Witt & Schrodt, 2006). The curvilinear effect of expected technology use had a greater impact on students’ perceptions of highly immediate teachers than on students’ perceptions of nonimmediate teachers. However, though instructor nonverbal immediacy clearly influences student motivation, there is no evidence that it moderates students’ text messaging during class, likely because texting has become an integral part of students’ daily media usage or a habitual behavior across classes (Wei & Wang, 2010).
Instructor Verbal Immediacy
Early in the development of the immediacy construct, Mehrabian (1971; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968) articulated a taxonomy of word choices and syntactic structures that could potentially result in perceptions of psychological closeness between communicators. Mehrabian identified such verbal structures as inclusivity (we vs. you), probability (will vs. might), and activity (active vs. passive voice), noting that these subtle verbal choices might communicate differing degrees of interpersonal identification, approval, and involvement. Some years later, Gorham (1988) brought this dimension of immediacy into classroom research by expanding the construct of instructor immediacy to include the verbal component. To operationalize verbal immediacy, she created the Verbal Immediacy Behaviors instrument, including such items as the use of personal examples, students’ first names, “we” and “our,” self-disclosure, praise and humor, as well as the willingness to initiate conversations with individual students. Arguing that both verbal and nonverbal communication cues contribute to students’ favorable perceptions of their teacher, she reported positive associations between verbal/nonverbal immediacy and students’ perceived affective and cognitive learning (Gorham, 1988).
The study of combined verbal and nonverbal immediacy is theoretically sound, given that instructional messages typically involve both vocal and visual cues (Witt et al., 2010), so a number of scholars utilized Gorham’s (1988) Verbal Immediacy Behaviors instrument in the 1990s and early 2000s to examine the role of immediacy in classroom instruction (e.g., Christophel, 1990; Hess, & Smythe, 2001; Myers et al., 1998). Some of the studies reported separate results for verbal immediacy and nonverbal immediacy (e.g., Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Frymier, 1994), whereas others reported only combined immediacy associations (e.g., Neuliep, 1997; Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). The strength of the relationship between instructor verbal immediacy and students’ learning was assessed by Witt and his colleagues (2004), whose meta-analysis of 81 studies involving more than 24,000 participants reported an overall effect size of .49 with affective learning, .49 with perceived learning, and only .06 with cognitive learning. The comparatively small association with performed cognitive learning (e.g., exam grades, course grades, GPA, performance assessment), stood in contrast to the greater association between verbal immediacy and students’ perceptions (i.e., affect for the teacher and course, self-assessment of learning). These findings, along with similar effect sizes for nonverbal immediacy, led the researchers to conclude, “Even though students like more highly immediate teachers and think they learn more from their courses, actual cognitive learning is not affected as much as they think it is” (Witt et al., 2004, p. 201).
In addition to its association with student learning, instructor verbal immediacy is also positively correlated with student state motivation to learn (Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Christophel, 1990), faculty-student out-of-class communication (Faranda, 2015; Jaasma & Koper, 1999), student self-efficacy and task value motivation (Velez & Cano, 2012), student creativity (Harrison, 2013), and online participation and satisfaction (Al Ghamdi, Samarji, & Watt, 2016). It should be noted, however, that findings based on data from Gorham’s (1988) Verbal Immediacy Behaviors instrument should be interpreted with caution, as the validity of the measure has been challenged (see Robinson & Richmond, 1995 and the Measurement section below).
Instructor Immediacy Across Cultures
Multi-cultural Classrooms in the United States
Initial research on instructor immediacy was largely restricted to American classrooms and based on primarily homogeneous samples of Caucasian students from middle-class families. Acknowledging that American classrooms are often culturally diverse, scholars later turned their attention to potential variations in perceptions and effects of instructor immediacy based on the ethnicity of students and instructors. For example, scholars have reported comparative studies involving African-American and Euro-American students (Gendrin & Rucker, 2007; Neuliep, 1995), White, Asian, and Hispanic students (Powell & Harville, 1990), and Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, and African-American students (Sanders & Wiseman, 1990). Collectively, their findings suggest that the overall association between immediacy and learning is generally positive among the major ethnic groups in American classrooms (McCroskey, Fayer, et al., 1996), but that the magnitude of the relationship sometimes varies among these groups. For example, comparative analysis of one multi-cultural student population indicated that immediacy cues such as smiling, praise, eye contact, and humor had more robust pan-cultural effects, whereas using personal examples was significant only for Hispanic and Black students, and gesturing and addressing students by name were important to White and Asian students (Powell & Harville, 1990). Although this line of research documented some small differences among ethnic groups, it should be noted that the similarities among these groups appeared to be greater than their differences (Johnson & Miller, 2002; McCroskey, Fayer, et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen, et al., 1996).
Instructor Immediacy in Classrooms Beyond the United States
Following a call by McCroskey et al. (1995) for the examination of instructor immediacy in cultures outside the United States, scholars conducted investigations in college classrooms in Australia, Finland, and Puerto Rico (McCroskey et al., 1995; McCroskey, Fayer, et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen, et al., 1996), Japan (Neuliep, 1997), China (Myers et al., 1998; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006a, 2006b; Zhang et al., 2007a), Germany (Roach & Byrne, 2001), Kenya (Johnson & Miller, 2002), Turkey (Ozmen, 2011), and Brazil (Santilli et al., 2011). Generally, the results indicated that American students perceived a greater degree of immediacy from their instructors than did their counterparts in Japan (Neuliep, 1997), China (Myers et al., 1998), Germany (Roach & Byrne, 2001), Kenya (Johnson & Miller, 2002), Australia and Finland (McCroskey et al., 1995), but approximately the same degree of immediacy as Puerto Rican students (McCroskey et al., 1995; McCroskey, Fayer, et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen, et al., 1996). These findings confirm the acceptance and frequent use of instructor immediacy in the United States, but they also indicate that immediacy cues are enacted in many other cultures. Instructor immediacy is not a uniquely American phenomenon.
As researchers examined immediacy in classrooms around the world, they observed some apparent differences in the relative appropriateness of immediacy cues during instruction. For example, engaging in small talk, self-disclosure, and addressing students by the first name – instructional practices common in American classrooms – may be considered inappropriate or even offensive in Chinese classrooms, where instructors generally address students by the full name (Myers et al., 1998; Zhang & Oetzel, 2006b).
Another important finding of intercultural studies relates to students’ expectations for their teachers to be somewhat immediate during classroom instruction. In cultures like the United States and Puerto Rico where expectations for immediacy are high, non-immediate instruction may have a negative impact on learning (Witt & Schrodt, 2006). By contrast, in China (Myers et al., 1998) and Japan (Neuliep, 1997) students do not typically expect their teachers to be verbally affiliative and nonverbally relational. When instructors in these countries enact immediacy cues, if the expectancy violations are viewed positively by students, learning may be enhanced (McCroskey, Fayer, et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen, et al., 1996; Neuliep, 1997). However, if these unexpectedly immediate instructors are viewed as committing negative violations of cultural norms, learning and other classroom outcomes could be negatively affected. Thus, instructors around the world should be sensitive to local cultural expectations and norms and enact immediacy cues in ways that promote a supportive classroom environment and a positive teacher-student relationship in accordance with the norms of local culture.
The Measurement of Instructor Immediacy
In this section we will consider the challenges faced by researchers as they seek to collect valid data for their immediacy investigations. Instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy are most likely isomorphic constructs: “Although verbal and nonverbal immediacy are sometimes treated as one construct, they actually represent two distinct constructs with separate measures” (Robinson & Richmond, 1995, p. 80). Consequently, instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy have been operationalized using two different scales that tap into distinctive types of behaviors (Robinson & Richmond, 1995), but the scales are largely behavior-oriented, and the items ask students to describe the frequency of these instructor immediacy cues (Frymier & Thompson, 1995).
Nonverbal Immediacy Measures
For her initial study of classroom immediacy, Andersen (1979) created the Generalized Immediacy (GI) scale and the Behavioral Indicants of Immediacy (BII) scale to measure perceived instructor nonverbal immediacy. The high-inference GI comprises nine semantic differential items measuring overall instructor nonverbal immediacy, whereas the low-inference BII consists of fifteen 7-point Likert-type items measuring frequency of use of immediacy cues. The GI and BII were often used in conjunction, but the high-inference nature of the GI was presumed to be the cause for the low validity coefficients between instructors’ and students’ reports of the same immediacy cues (McCroskey, Fayer, et al., 1996; McCroskey, Sallinen, et al., 1996; Richmond et al., 2003).
Richmond et al. (1987) modified the BII and renamed it the Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (NIM). The 14-item NIM was “a low-inference measure with a reference base consistent for all students, regardless of subject matter being studied or the culture of the student” (McCroskey et al., 1995, p. 284). Although the NIM has been found to demonstrate reliability and validity in many studies, some items relating to sitting, standing, or touching were found to be poor items, and the elimination of these items turned out to increase the reliability of the measure. This gave rise to the revised version of NIM (RNIM), which consists of ten 5-point Likert-type items, measuring the frequency of the use of gestures, eye contact, smiles, and vocal variety (McCroskey et al., 1995).
Early measures limited the scope of immediacy research to classroom communication. To extend immediacy research into more varied contexts of instructional, interpersonal, and organizational communication, Richmond et al. (2003) developed a 26-item Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS), which could be used as a self-report (NIS-S) or other/observer-report (NIS-O). Although most items were drawn from previous instruments, additional items (e.g., I look over or away from others while talking to them) were added to balance positively and negatively worded items (Richmond et al., 2003). The NIS was found to demonstrate high reliability, strong content, and predictive validity (Richmond et al., 2003).
Verbal Immediacy Measures
Gorham (1988) developed the Verbal Immediacy Behaviors (VIB) instrument by asking students “to think of the best instructors they had throughout all their years of school and list the specific behavior which characterized those instructors” (p. 43). The resulting 20 scale items included use of personal examples or experiences, use of humor, use of first names and praises, and asking questions. Following its introduction in 1988, the scale has been used widely both within and across cultures. Though the VIB is reported to have adequate reliabilities ranging from .76 to .94 (Christophel, 1990; Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Frymier, 1994; Gorham, 1988; Myers et al., 1998; Neuliep, 1997), the validity of the scale has been called into question. For example, Hess and Smythe’s (2001) critique inferred that items on the VIB bore little resemblance to Mehrabian’s original linguistic taxonomies (1969; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968). In addition, Gorham’s methods of scale development encountered criticism because they appeared to generate items representing “verbally effective instructor behaviors, not necessarily verbally immediate behaviors. The face validity of the scale, therefore, is for a scale measuring instructor effectiveness, not a scale measuring instructor immediacy” (Robinson & Richmond, 1995, p. 81).
Discontent with the VIB led Mottet and Richmond (1998) to undertake the development of a new verbal immediacy measure. In order to develop theoretically sound scale items, they returned to Mehrabian’s (1968) typologies of verbal approach-avoidance strategies that should comprise a measure of verbally immediate instruction. After developing items and testing a preliminary instrument, they concluded that instructor verbal immediacy is a more complex construct than scripted, text-based linguistic codes or messages teachers use to identify with course content and show interpersonal approach toward students. Moreover, Richmond and her colleagues (2003) argued that the portion of instructional messages containing proximity, duration, probability, and inclusivity might be too small to justify further investigations of verbal immediacy in classroom communication. Given the absence of a valid verbal immediacy measure, current thinking is that scholars are on more stable theoretical ground when they confine their studies to instructor nonverbal immediacy (Hess & Smythe, 2001; Mottet & Richmond, 1998; Richmond et al., 2003; Robinson & Richmond, 1995).
Challenges with Instructor Immediacy Research
Instructor immediacy research, in spite of its remarkable progress, faces some challenges if it is to maintain a respected place among instructional communication scholars. These challenges frequently involve criticisms of research design, data collection procedures, and cultural limitations. In this section we briefly examine each of these concerns.
Research Design
Although self-reports are not uncommon as a means of data collection, a very large number of immediacy research findings are based on students’ reports of instructor immediacy rather than actual, measured, or manipulated immediacy cues. Of course, researchers find survey research designs to be convenient ways to accumulate data from participants, as opposed to staging controlled experiments. Aware of the risk of halo effects (Feeley, 2002), some researchers have been careful to test for evidence that students’ individual differences may be potentially influencing their reporting of instructor immediacy (e.g., Frymier & Thompson, 1995). Inherent in survey designs is the possibility that students’ perceptions of instructor immediacy might be confounded with or biased by their judgments of the instructor based on other factors – like easy grading, pacing and style, even physical attractiveness – that might increase students’ affect and liking for the instructor. The concern is that these impressions may, in turn, influence students’ perceptions of instructor immediacy (Hess & Smythe, 2001).
Given the perceptual nature of students’ reports of observed instructor immediacy cues and the current challenges to the validity of immediacy measurement, some scholars are now turning to experimental research and the controlled manipulation of levels or frequencies of immediacy cues. For example, Smythe and Hess (2005) videotaped instructors in the natural classroom environment. They asked students to report their perceptions of instructor nonverbal immediacy, and they had two trained assistants code the incidences of instructor immediacy in the videotapes. Surprisingly, researchers observed no significant correlation between the student reports and the instructor reports of instructor nonverbal immediacy. Thus, they concluded that student reports might not be a valid way to measure teacher immediacy behaviors. Other experimental researchers (e.g., Pogue & AhYun, 2006; Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011; Zhang & Sapp, 2008) have manipulated levels of instructor immediacy use to assess the effects of immediacy on classroom outcomes. Overall, the effect sizes observed in experimental research are smaller than in survey studies (Witt et al., 2004). The discrepancy between a teacher’s communicative actions and students’ perceptions of those actions gives rise to the question: Which dimension is more valid? In terms of teaching and learning, is it more critical that instructors actually perform certain communicative actions, or is it the students’ perceptual observations that have the greater impact on outcomes? This unresolved question will continue to be of concern in ongoing immediacy research.
Data Collection Instruments
Research findings are deemed credible only if they are based on valid and reliable data. Since the earliest classroom immediacy studies, the validity of instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy measures has been a constant concern (Witt et al., 2010). Over the years, scholars have adjusted the nonverbal immediacy measures by editing or removing some original, dated items such as touching students and sitting vs. standing while teaching; though these communication cues were part of Mehrabian’s (1969) original conceptualization of interpersonal immediacy and included in Andersen’s (1979) initial instructor immediacy study, they were found to be inappropriate or no longer relevant in most American college classrooms (Hess & Smythe, 2001; Richmond et al., 2003). For example, “sitting in a chair while teaching” or “having a tense body position” might be problematic for instructors who use a wheelchair, resulting in lower scores on perceived nonverbal immediacy (Hess & Smythe, 1996; Moore, Masterson, Christophel, & Shea, 1996). Problems with the validity of verbal immediacy measurement were noted earlier in this chapter, and questions persist concerning the face validity of Gorham’s (1988) Verbal Immediacy Behaviors instrument. Consequently, instructor verbal immediacy research has slowed considerably in recent years, as some leading scholars have called for cessation until a valid measure can be generated (Hess & Smythe, 2001; Witt et al., 2010).
Cultural Limitations
As stated earlier, instructor immediacy is not a uniquely American concept, but a culturally sensitive enactment of affiliation that differs from culture to culture. Therefore, scholars should exercise caution in generalizing findings across cultures, especially when measures themselves probably contain inherent cultural bias. Like many other U.S.-based concepts, theories, and paradigms, instructor immediacy measures derived from U.S. classrooms are not void of Eurocentric bias, which becomes problematic when they are applied directly across cultures because immediacy is culturally loaded (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006a). Some immediacy cues in American college classrooms might be perceived as negative expectancy violations in other cultures due to different communication norms and expectations, instructor-student relationships, roles, and responsibilities (Myers et al., 1998; Neuliep, 1997). For example, moving around the classroom and gesturing frequently are deemed as immediate in U.S. classrooms, but they might be perceived as inappropriate or even nonimmediate in other cultures such as Japan, where dynamic, expressive communication styles are not encouraged (Neuliep, 1997).
Zhang and Oetzel (2006a) identified three major Eurocentric biases in instructor immediacy scales, the first being that instructors could build immediacy through in-class communication behaviors only. These classroom-focus-only immediacy scales might not apply to Chinese educational contexts. Due to the accentuation of holistic teaching embracing instructors’ instructional and pastoral roles, Chinese instructors’ roles are expected to extend beyond classrooms to out-of-class domains (Biggs & Watkins, 2001; Ho, 2001). Thus, in China, an effective instructor immediacy scale should measure both instructors’ in-class communication behaviors and their out-of-class communication and involvement with students, which inseparably contribute to the measurement of instructor immediacy cues.
The second Eurocentric bias concerns specific scale items that reflect dominant U.S. cultural values honoring small power distance and individualism. In the U.S. culture that values equality and egalitarianism, instructors usually address students by the first name or encourage students to address them by the first name to minimize their power distance and to enhance closeness. However, this immediate practice is inappropriate in the large power distance and collectivistic Chinese culture, which treats instructors as the authority in the classroom and expects obedience and conformity from students. Chinese instructors are expected to address students by their full name. Other American immediacy cues are considered inappropriate in China, such as small talk, using or eliciting personal information, and self-disclosure (Myers et al., 1998).
The third Eurocentric bias concerns the (mis)conception that instructor immediacy should be oriented primarily toward in-class instructional messages. The instruction-based operationalization of instructor immediacy is reflective of the larger task-oriented or substantive-focused pragmatic mentality in the United States, but in China the triple role of the instructor as an instructor, parent, and moral model requires that instructor-student interactions go beyond instructional-level issues to relational-level issues. Instructors are expected to perform effective teaching, demonstrate good morality, and show genuine concern for students’ personal life and problems. Therefore, a Chinese perspective of instructor immediacy should integrate both instructional and relational behaviors (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006a).
The inherent cultural limitations of instructor immediacy research pose a significant challenge to cross-cultural equivalence, and scholars should be careful to avoid applying an emically derived construct or measure to other cultures (Brislin, 2000; Gudykunst, 2000; Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002). Cross-cultural equivalence includes conceptual, linguistic, sample, instrument, and metric equivalence. As of yet, scholars have produced scant research on the topic of etic and emic scales, and the cultural impact on meaning and scaling of constructs has not yet received adequate attention from instructional communication researchers (Plank, 1998). Instrument equivalence is a key methodological concern in crosscultural comparisons; however, due to the difficulty in developing truly etic measures that cut across cultures, some researchers have assumed that a scale from one culture applies equally well to other cultures. The imposed pseudoetics can create serious problems for research findings (Gudykunst, 2000; Yu, Keown, & Jacobs, 1993). Culture-bound emic scales cannot yield valid and reliable results if they are used inappropriately in cross-cultural research, because theoretically cross-cultural comparison requires etic scales, which are supposed to be culturally free or at least culturally fair (Plank, 1998).
Directions for Future Instructor Immediacy Research
Given the extensive findings of more than three decades of immediacy research, and given the current challenges of measurement and cultural limitations, what should be the focus of future immediacy research? First, because most instructor immediacy research to date has been conducted in the United States, the possibilities are endless for examinations of cultural influences on instructor immediacy. Only then will we capture a fuller vision of the construct and understand the repertoire of indigenous immediacy cues. As one example, Zhang and Oetzel (2006a) found the Chinese perception of teacher immediacy to be more holistic, embracing instructional, relational, and personal dimensions, whereas the American perception is more instruction-oriented. Their study represents a step in the direction of advancing alternative and/or multiple perspectives in instructional communication. Future research should be strengthened in the emic conceptualization of culture-loaded instructional constructs and the development of corresponding emic instruments to capture the full domain of the constructs and to maximize crosscultural equivalence in cross-cultural studies.
Second, given that online learning is becoming an increasingly important alternative to the traditional classroom learning, an emerging area of research is instructor immediacy in online learning environments, which certainly merits more scholarly attention (Arbaugh, 2001). Online learning offers undeniable advantages in flexibility, accessibility, and convenience, but existing studies still largely focus on instructor immediacy in conventional face-to-face settings. Thus, there is a need to extend the line of research to online learning environments (Baker, 2010). Instructors in online courses can still use verbal immediacy behaviors, such as humor, addressing students by name, encouraging discussions, or providing feedback, even if they are restricted to a text-only context (Arbaugh, 2001). There is every reason to believe that perceptions of instructor immediacy can be transmitted across distance delivery systems of all types. Researchers in the era of videotaped distance courses found that instructor nonverbal immediacy was associated with perceived instructor competence and likability (Guerrero and Miller, 1998), as well as student learning and satisfaction (Walker & Hackman, 1991). In fact, Walker and Hackman reported that video instructors’ nonverbal immediacy was the greatest predictor of students’ desire to take another video-based course from the same instructor. These early studies prompted Murphy and Farr (1993) to conclude, “It is particularly important for distance instructors to incorporate behaviors in their teaching that will reduce the learners’ sense of physical and psychological distance. One way to reduce this sense of distance is for the instructors to use immediacy behaviors” (p. 2). These preliminary studies can serve as a springboard from which to launch further investigations of the effects of instructor immediacy in the computer-mediated environment of web-based learning (Baker, 2010).
Third, there is much to be learned concerning the complicated immediacylearning relationship, particularly the moderating and mediating effects of instructor immediacy. Additional work must be conducted to refine or redesign a more complete immediacy-learning theoretical model. Although Zhang and Oetzel (2006b) found that the integrating model has better fit than the learning model, the motivation model, and the affective learning model, the integrating model comprises only four variables (immediacy, affective learning, state motivation, and cognitive learning) identified in earlier models. Thoughtful researchers may uncover additional variables as of yet unidentified, and these variables may be found to moderate or mediate the effects of instructor immediacy on student learning. After all, the reason instructors teach is to enhance student learning, and a more complete understanding of instructor immediacy may very well contribute to more effective teaching and learning.
References
Al Ghamdi, A., Samarji, A., & Watt, A. (2016). Essential considerations in distance education in KSA: Teacher immediacy in a virtual teaching and learning environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6, 17–22.
Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of instructor immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55, 21–31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Instructor immediacy as a predictor of instructor effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. Progress in Communication Sciences, 14, 39–72.
Andersen, P. A. (1999). Creating close relationships through nonverbal communication: A cognitive valence approach. In L. K. Guerrero, J. A. DeVito, & M. L. Hecht (Eds.),The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 445–452). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Andersen, P., & Andersen, J. (1982). Nonverbal immediacy in instruction. In L. L. Barker (Ed.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 98–120). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication Research, 24, 501–535. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00429.x
Arbaugh, J. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 42–54. doi:10.1177/108056990106400405
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7, 1–30.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Biggs, J. B., & Watkins, D. A. (2001). Insights into teaching the Chinese learner. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 277–298). Hong Kong, China: Comparative Education Research Center.
Brislin, R. (2000). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1989). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York, NY: Harper Row.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79. doi:10.1080/03637758809376158
Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of instructor nonverbal immediacy and student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453–475. doi:10.1080/03634520701530896
Cappella, J. N. (1999). Explaining face-to-face interaction: Discrepancy-arousal theory. In L. K. Guerrero, J. A. DeVito, & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 445–452). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Cappella, J. N., & Greene, J. O. (1982). A discrepancy-arousal explanation of mutual influence in expressive behavior for adult-adult and infant-adult interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 89–114. doi:10.1080/03637758209376074
Cappella, J. N., & Greene, J. O. (1984). The effects of distance and individual differences in arousability on nonverbal involvement: A test of discrepancy-arousal theory. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 259–286. doi:10.1007/BF00985983
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship between instructor clarity and immediacy and student affect and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59–68. doi:10.1080/03634520109379232
Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of instructor immediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, 82–90. doi:10.1080/03634529809379112
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among instructor immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813
Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292–306. doi:10.1080/03634529509379020
Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports, 24, 241–248. doi:10.1080/08824090701446617
Comstock, J., Rowell, E., & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: Instructor nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251–266. doi:10.1080/03634529509379015
Faranda, W. T. (2015). The effects of instructor service performance, immediacy, and trust on student–faculty out-of-class communication. Marketing Education Review, 25, 83–97. doi:10.1080/10528008.2015.1029853
Feeley, T. H. (2002). Evidence of halo effects in student evaluations of communication instruction. Communication Education, 51, 225–236. doi:10.1080/03634520216519
Finn, A. N., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Students’ perceived understanding mediates the effects of instructor clarity and nonverbal immediacy on learner empowerment. Communication Education, 61, 111–130. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.656669
Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42, 133– 144. doi:10.1080/01463379409369922
Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1995). Using student reports to measure immediacy: Is it a valid methodology? Communication Research Reports, 12, 85–93. doi:10.1080/08824099509362043
Fusani, D. S. (1994). “Extra-class” communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 232–255. doi:10.1080/00909889409365400
Gendrin, D. M., & Rucker, M. L. (2007). Student motive for communicating and instructor immediacy: A matched-race institutional comparison. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15, 41–60. doi:10.1080/15456870701212682
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2009). The relationship between perceived instructor immediacy and student challenge behavior. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 108-112.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal instructor immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53. doi:10.1080/03634528809378702
Gudykunst, W. B. (2000). Methodological issues in conducting theory-based cross-cultural research. In H. Spencer-Oatley (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing relations in talk across cultures (pp. 293–315). London, England: Cassell.
Guerrero, L. K., & Miller, T. A. (1998). Associations between nonverbal behaviors and initial impressions of instructor competence and course content in videotaped distance education courses. Communication Education, 47, 30-42. doi:10.1080/03634529809379108
Hale, J. L., & Burgoon, J. K. (1984). Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 287–314. doi:10.1080/03637758809376158
Harrison, J. L. (2013). The effects of instructor transformational leadership and verbal immediacy on learner autonomy and creativity in online contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903–918.
Hess, J. A., & Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197–219. doi:10.1080/10510970109388554
Ho, I. T. (2001). Are Chinese teachers authoritarian? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 99–114). Hong Kong, China: Comparative Education Research Center.
Hsu, L. (2010). The impact of perceived instructors’ nonverbal immediacy on students’ motivation for learning English. Asian EFL Journal, 12, 188–204.
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48, 41–47. doi:10.1080/03634529909379151
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (2002). Out-of-class communication between female and male students and faculty: The relationship to student perceptions of instructor immediacy. Women’s Studies in Communication, 25, 119–137. doi:10.1080/07491409.2002.10162443
Johnson, S. C., & Miller, A. N. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education, 51, 280–292. doi:10.1080/03634520216514
Kelly, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37, 198–207. doi:10.1080/03634528809378719
Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: How do instructor immediacy cues and facework tactics interact to predict student motivation and fairness perceptions?. Communication Studies, 63, 498–517. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.632660
Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2015). Instructional feedback III: How do instructor facework tactics and immediacy cues interact to predict student perceptions of being mentored?. Communication Education, 64, 1–24. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.978797
Le Poire, B., & Burgoon, J. (1994). Two contrasting explanations of involvement violations: Expectancy violations theory versus discrepancy arousal theory. Human Communication Research, 20, 560–591. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00335.x
Martin, L., & Mottet, T. P. (2011). The effect of instructor nonverbal immediacy behaviors and feedback sensitivity on Hispanic students’ affective learning outcomes in ninth-grade writing conferences. Communication Education, 60, 1–19. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.496868
McCroskey, J. C., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). A multicultural examination of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 45, 297–307. doi:10.1080/01463379609370019
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., & Barraclough, R. A. (1995). A crosscultural and multi-behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and instructor evaluation. Communication Education, 44, 281–291. doi:10.1080/03634529509379019
McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 4, 200–211. doi:10.1080/03634529609379049
Mehrabian, A. (1966). Immediacy: An indicator of attitudes in linguistic communication. Journal of Personality, 34, 26–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1966.tb01696.x
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. Journal of Communication, 17, 324–332. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1967.tb01190.x
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communications. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 6, 294–295. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80113-0
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
Miller, A. N., Katt, J. A., Brown, T., & Sivo, S. A. (2014). The relationship of instructor self-disclosure, nonverbal immediacy, and credibility to student incivility in the college classroom. Communication Education, 63, 1–16. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.835054
Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., & Shea, K. A. (1996). College teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45, 29–39. doi:10.1080/03634529609379030
Mottet, T. P., & Richmond, V. P. (1998). An inductive analysis of verbal immediacy: Alternative conceptualization of relational verbal approach/avoidance strategies. Communication Quarterly, 46, 25–40. doi:10.1080/01463379809370082
Murphy, K. L., & Farr, C. W. (1993, January). The critical role of the ID in interactive television: The value of immediacy. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations from the convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA.
Myers, S. A., Zhong, M., & Guan. S. (1998). Instructor immediacy in the Chinese college classroom. Communication Studies, 49, 240–254. doi:10.1080/10510979809368534
Neuliep, J. W. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor immediacy in American and Japanese college classrooms. Communication Research, 24, 431–451. doi:10.1177/009365097024004006
Ozmen, K. S. (2011). Perception of nonverbal immediacy and effective teaching among student instructors: A study across cultural extremes. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3, 865–881.
Plank, R. E. (1998). The emic versus etic dilemma in cross-cultural marketing research: A personal construct theory perspective. Proceedings of the Midwest Marketing Association Meeting, 80–94.
Pogue, L. L., & Ahyun, K. (2006). The effect of instructor nonverbal immediacy and credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication Education, 55, 331–344. doi:10.1080/03634520600748623
Powell, R. G., & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of instructor immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39, 369–379. doi:10.1080/03634529009378816
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574–590.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self-and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–517. doi:10.1080/01463370309370170
Roach, K. D., & Byrne, P. R. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor communication in American and German classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 1–14. doi:10.1080/03634520109379228
Robinson, R. Y., & Richmond, V. P. (1995). Validity of the verbal immediacy scale. Communication Research Reports, 12, 80–84. doi:10.1080/08824099509362042
Rodriguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45, 293–305. doi:10.1080/03634529609379059
Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal instructor immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39, 341–353. doi:10.1080/03634529009378814
Santilli, V., Miller, A. N., & Katt, J. (2011). A comparison of the relationship between instructor nonverbal immediacy and instructor credibility in Brazilian and US classrooms. Communication Research Reports, 28, 266–274. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.588583
Smythe, M., & Hess, J. A. (2005). Are student self-reports a valid method for measuring teacher nonverbal immediacy? Communication Education, 54, 170–179. doi:10.1080/03634520500213389
Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11, 107–114. doi:10.1080/08824099409359946
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Instructor nonimmediacy and misbehavior: Unintentional negative communication. Communication Research Reports, 13, 198–204. doi:10.1080/08824099609362087
Velez, J. J., & Cano, J. (2012). Instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy and the relationship with student self-efficacy and task value motivation. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53, 87–98.
Walker, K. B., & Hackman, M. Z. (1991, November). Information transfer and nonverbal immediacy as primary predictors of learning and satisfaction in the televised course. Paper presented at the convention of the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
Wei, F. Y. F., & Wang, Y. K. (2010). Students’ silent messages: Can instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy moderate student use of text messaging in class? Communication Education, 59, 475–496. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.496092
Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Witt, P. L., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework and immediacy on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60, 75–94. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.507820
Witt, P. L., & Schrodt, P. (2006). The influence of instructional technology use and instructor immediacy on student affect for instructor and course. Communication Reports, 19, 1–15. doi:10.1080/08934210500309843
Witt, P. L. Schrodt, P., & Turman, P. D. (2010). Instructor immediacy: Creating connections conducive to classroom learning. In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The Sage handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 201–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Witt, P. L. Schrodt, P., Wheeless, V. E., & Bryand, M. C. (2014). Students’ intent to persist in college: Moderating the negative effects of receiver apprehension with instructor credibility and nonverbal Immediacy. Communication Studies, 65, 330–352. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.811428
Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbal immediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 327–342. doi:10.1080/03634520109379259
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between instructor immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184– 207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054
Yu, J. H., Keown, C. F., & Jacobs, L. W. (1993). Attitude scale methodology: Cross-cultural implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6, 45–64. doi:10.1300/J046v06n02_05
Zhang, Q. (2005). Instructor immediacy and classroom communication apprehension: A crosscultural investigation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 48–63.
Zhang, Q. (2006). Immediacy and out-of-class communication: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 33–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.006
Zhang, Q. (2007). Instructor misbehaviors as learning demotivators in college classrooms: A cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Education, 56, 209–227. doi:10.1080/03634520601110104
Zhang, Q. (2009). Perceived instructor credibility and student learning: Development of a multicultural model. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 326–347. doi:10.1080/10570310903082073
Zhang, Q., & Huang, B. (2008). How does instructor clarity affect student learning? A multicultural test for the mediated effect. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33, 10–19.
Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006a). Constructing and validating an instructor immediacy scale: A Chinese perspective. Communication Education, 55, 218–241. doi:10.1080/03634520600566231
Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006b). A cross-cultural test of immediacy-learning models in Chinese classrooms. Communication Education, 55, 313–330. doi:10.1080/03634520600748599
Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Gao, X., Wilcox, R. G., & Takai, J. (2007a). Instructor immediacy scales: Testing for validity across cultures. Communication Education, 56, 228–248. doi:10.1080/03634520601089092
Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Gao, X., Wilcox, R. G., & Takai, J. (2007b). A further test of immediacylearning models: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36, 1–13. doi:10.1080/17475750701265209
Zhang, Q., & Sapp, D. (2008). A burning issue in teaching: The impact of perceived instructor burnout and nonverbal immediacy on student motivation and affective learning. Journal of Communication Studies, 1, 152–168.