Philip M. Backlund and Sherwyn P. Morreale
2Communication competence: Historical synopsis, definitions, applications, and looking to the future
Abstract: This chapter traces the history of communication competence as a concept and area of inquiry in the communication discipline. As a socio-psychological concept, competence was first examined by researchers in the early and middle 20th century, and has maintained a central place in both research and instruction since that time. The chapter describes the concept’s evolution over the years, highlights significant historical milestones in the educational setting, and outlines definitional issues and the manner in which communication competence has influenced scholarship in other fields of study. An international and intercultural perspective on communication competence and recommendations for future scholarly inquiry conclude the chapter.
Keywords: communication competence, communication effectiveness, incompetence, rhetoric, liberal education, interpersonal competence, social judgment, intentionality, competence antecedents
Communication competence is similar to good art and pornography. Everyone knows it when they see it, but when pressed, they may have a difficult time describing what it is, exactly. It is not for want of trying. Over the past fifty years, scholars in the discipline of communication have written dozens of books and articles about communication competence, and the concept has evolved, expanded, and come to occupy a central place in the hearts and minds of communication scholars the world over (Rickheit and Strohner 2008).
Indeed, as we shall see later in this chapter and in this volume, the concept has spread to many other fields and disciplinary areas of inquiry. This spread is a reflection of the centrality of spoken symbolic interaction in the lives and professions of literally every human being. While it is not the purpose of this chapter to provide a rationale for the importance of the instruction in communication (that was done earlier in Morreale and Pearson 2008), it is easy to find evidence that scholars across disciplines recognize the importance of communication and competence. One survey among business leaders revealed that a clear majority of employers believe that colleges and universities should place more emphasis on communication skills, critical thinking and analytical skills, and applied knowledge in real-world settings (Hart Research Associates 2013). Other national studies concur by pointing to the importance of instruction about the critical business communication skills needed in organizations and the workplace (Conrad and Newberry 2012). Chapter 16 in this volume comprehensively describes the scholarship on communication competence in organizational settings and in groups.
The recognition that communication knowledge and skills are important has become commonplace. Indeed, this is partly true because everyone communicates, and communication is the sine qua non of human existence. If everyone communicates, it is equally clear that not everyone communicates well all of the time. It is obvious that the degree to which individuals demonstrate competent communication varies widely from person to person. The basic question then becomes, what does competent communication look like? As the following chapters in this volume attest, and depending on the context and situation, this question is not always easy to answer. Parks (1994) said that there are many unknowns regarding communication competence, but there is also a remarkable level of societal consensus about what constitutes incompetence. When people “fail” at social interaction, say the wrong thing, damage someone’s self-esteem, or threaten others inappropriately, these people are frequently and easily judged as incompetent. Many communication scholars and teachers have addressed this incompetence, as well as strategies for achieving a satisfactory level of competence that would improve people’s lives. Communication researchers have devoted countless hours to studying a wide array of communication variables with the goal of identifying the predictors of successful communication. Educators have translated those research results into communication instruction designed to help students improve their communication. Many such research studies on instructional communication are documented in Chapter 18 of this volume.
These three conditions – the centrality of communication to human existence, the fact that people vary in their ability to use communication effectively and appropriately, and our awareness of the value of instruction intended to improve a person’s ability to communicate – all provide a context for the development and refinement of the concept of communication competence. It is with these three conditions in mind that this chapter explores the origins, development, and expansion of this ubiquitous term. The chapter is divided into the following sections:
–A synopsis of the historical evolution of the concept of competent communication;
–Development of the concept in the national educational setting and communication discipline in the U.S.;
–Definitions of communication competence and definitional issues;
–A description of the components of communication competence;
–Applications of communication competence in other fields and disciplines;
–An international and intercultural perspective on the study of communication competence;
–General recommendations for future scholarship on communication competence.
1The history and evolution of communication competence
1.1Early roots in rhetoric
We first consider the beginnings of competence in the study of rhetoric. Prior to the coining of the term communication competence, people analyzed the role of communication in human affairs and provided answers to the question “Why should we be concerned about human communication and its development?” While many have provided opinions, few have expressed it more eloquently than Cicero [1876].
It is by this one gift [the spoken word] that we are most distinguished from brute animals, that we converse together, and can express our thoughts by speech. Who therefore would not justly make this an object of admiration and think it worthy of the utmost exertions, to surpass mankind itself in that single excellence by which it claims superiority over brutes? (p. 187)
Clearly, Cicero conceived speech (oratory) as primarily being used to serve human-istic ends. This is an excellent rationale for the study of the spoken word, and for training in its use. Given this rationale, theorists and philosophers have attempted for eons to teach people how to use this unique and remarkable gift. One of the most celebrated of these, of course, was Aristotle [1941]. In a wide range of writings in the 4th century BCE, this Greek philosopher described the art and practice of rhetoric, of finding the available means of persuasion, and encouraging the development of its use by individuals and society. Aristotle described the effective and appropriate (that is, competent) speaker as someone who had the right blend of logic, emotion, and credibility. A Roman rhetorician, Quintilian [1903], writing in the 1st century CE, is widely credited with the phrase “a good man speaking well”. He brought a moral side to the question of competence. In his eyes, to be an effective speaker required a moral goodness in addition to knowledge and skills.
Rhetoric continued for the next almost two thousand years as the organizing principle in discussions of competent communication. Minor embellishments occurred over the centuries, but the ideals of the ancient rhetoricians have remained remarkably resilient. During the Renaissance, rhetoric did shift emphasis to an aesthetic art with a central focus on proper conversational delivery, or “decorum” (Mohrmann 1972). Decorum requires delivery to be adapted with appropriate discretion to the context, and to the people in that context. This notion extended Aristotle’s admonition about analyzing the audience to a more empathetic orientation – being other-oriented.
1.2Continuing evolution of communication competence
The 18th and 19th centuries brought more interest in elocution and delivery. For example, Sheridan (1762) wrote that effective speaking included “the just and graceful management of the voice, countenance, and gesture in speaking” (p. 11). This emphasis implied that the competent communicator was one who “fit in and made the right impression”. This notion, as we will see, fits well with some of the later conceptualizations of the term. As the study of rhetoric moved into the 20th century, Richards (1965) took an interest in incompetent communication, focusing on the study of misunderstanding and its remedies. He developed an argument for what can be considered an essential element of competent communication: accuracy in meaning. Thus, according to Richards, the competent communicator communicates her/his meaning more accurately than a communicator who is judged less competent.
Continuing the theme of rhetoric as the point of focus, Clark and Delia (1979) introduced the notion of goals and communication strategies to the discussion of rhetorical competence. They viewed rhetorical competence broadly as purposive, strategic message formulation. “The rhetorically competent speaker must not only define communicative goals, but must control the full resources of communication in fitting a message to concrete circumstances in accomplishing those defined ends” (1979: 193). The competent communicator then uses messages strategically to accomplish goals, and also intentionally controls the circumstances and context of the message environment. This point of view implies, perhaps, that a speaker cannot be accidentally competent even though an audience may judge the communicator as competent.
Fisher (1980: 121) viewed rhetorical competence somewhat differently. He placed emphasis first on his belief that “the rationality of any verbal communicative interaction is grounded in rhetoric”. Next, he saw rhetoric as supported by the logic of good reasons, which suggests that rhetoric is a concept “that is self-perpetuating, nonmanipulative, bilateral, deliberative, reflexive, and attentive to data” (p. 121). He stated that “being reasonable, like being rational, is an essential ingredient of rhetorical competence” (p. 122). His view of rhetorical competence thus is less strategic than Delia’s. Fisher’s view supports more of a “come, let us reason together” approach, rather than the ability to construct communication strategies to achieve personal goals. Fisher’s view is reflected in later sources that emphasize the ability to work with other people in an effective and appropriate manner.
Without a doubt, modern conceptions of communication competence have a solid foundation in the study of rhetoric. We next consider the origins of communication competence by examining its role in the educational arena over time. If we accept the two earlier points about the centrality of the spoken word in society and the importance of teaching individuals to become more competent communicators, we can examine the question: How does the concept of communication competence fit into the education of an individual?
2Development of communication competence in the national educational setting and communication discipline in the U.S.
Educational theorists and philosophers have been and continue to be concerned with the goals of education. The question of educational goals or outcomes can be distilled down to this fundamental query: “If we are doing it right, what will an educated person look like?” The question is neither one of specific objectives, nor one of course content, but a macro view of the educated human being. Considering sixteen years of education (including college), considering the sum total of that experience, what constitutes the “fully educated person”? And what is the role of communication competence in that education?
One recurring theme in discussions of educational goals is the concept of a “liberal” education. That notion has not lost relevance as many higher education institutions still struggle with articulating the role of general (liberal) education in the overall education of their students, and relatedly, the place of communication in that framework. Here is but one example of the early descriptions of liberal education. This quotation is taken from a committee representing the faculties of three universities: Harvard, Princeton, and Yale (General Education in School and College, 1953).
The liberally educated man [sic] is articulate, both in speech and writing. He has feel for language, a respect for clarity and directness of expression, and knowledge of some language other than his own. He thinks logically, rationally, objectively, and knows the difference between fact and opinion. When the situation demands it, however, his thought is imaginative and creative rather than logical. (pp. 21–22)
The role of communication is readily apparent in this description that calls attention to the importance of using language effectively, speaking well, and clearly communicating to others.
At about the same general time but before the concept of communication competence was identified, writers in communication studies also attempted to define the educated communicator. For example, Wallace, Smith, and Weaver (1963) said, “The field of speech is still committed to the ideal of the citizen-speaker first set up by the Roman schools, the ideal of a good man speaking well” (p. 333). Another notable communication scholar, Dance (1958), put it this way:
The student must develop the ability to listen, view, and think critically; he must develop insight into his own speech habits; he must share in recent semantic investigations; and he must develop an awareness of socially accepted standards of good speech. (p. 152)
Dance and other communication educators continued attempts to define the goals of communication education, and (without using the term) to define the competent communicator. Their definitions served as springboards for developing educational strategies designed to increase the communication knowledge and skills of individuals.
Then, as we moved along in time, factors in the educational arena outside communication studies lent urgency to the efforts and work within the communication discipline.
The 1950s and the 1960s saw a number of writers describe perceived failures in the U.S.-American educational system. Books such as Silberman’s (1970) Crisis in the Classroom: The Re-making of American Education and Holt’s (1965/1982) How Children Fail, along with many other sources, pointed out a wide range of concerns and inadequacies in the education of the nation’s children. These concerns generated a number of national efforts designed to correct the perceived problems (Larson et al. 1978). Terms like “competency” and “competence” figured prominently in these efforts. Phrases such as “competency-based education”, “functional competencies”, and others were used to describe the specific knowledge and skills that contributed to mastery of a subject.
In 1970, the terms “competence” and “competency” had not yet achieved their soon to be “fad” status, but that changed sharply in the mid-1970s. The competency movement swept the educational scene like few ideas before it. Literally dozens of educational reports called for a move to “competency-based” education. The federal government, most of the states, and most education associations climbed on the bandwagon, and evidence of increased attention to speaking and listening skills abounded. The federal government included speaking and listening in its definition of basic skills in 1978. That single event led to a significant increase in efforts by the states and their departments of education to define communication competence and develop curricula objectives for speaking and listening. As the states began to focus more attention on speaking and listening skills, academic associations in the communication discipline became involved.
2.1The role of the National Communication Association
The Speech Communication Association (SCA, which is now NCA) saw the competency movement as an opportunity to reach two important associational goals – to become more active in public education, and to increase the amount of time devoted to the teaching of speaking and listening skills in public schools. SCA’s official interest and support for the concept of communication competence began in 1973 with the initiation of the National Project of Speech Communication Competencies. The project was originated and sponsored by the SCA and supported with a grant from the Axe-Houghton Foundation (Allen and Brown 1976). The project culminated with the publication in 1976, Developing Communication Competence in Children: A Report of the Speech Communication Association’s National Project on Speech Communication Competencies, edited by Allen and Brown. The book described effective and applied communication, including the means by which these aspects of communication behavior are learned and how they might enhance relationships.
The endpoint of describing communication competence in Allen and Brown’s volume was the question of whether or not instruction can have any impact on the subsequent development of communication competence in children. Their review of the literature suggested that, in fact, communication instruction can positively impact future communication behaviors. In the summary of the volume, the authors foreshadowed later definitional efforts by describing communication competence in this manner: “Communication competence, unlike linguistic competence, involves an awareness of the transactions that occur between people. Competence in this perspective is tied to the actual performance of language in social contexts” (p. 248). The authors also came to the conclusion that communication behaviors leading to competence can be synthesized into five categories of communicative acts: 1. controlling behavior (self and others), 2. expression of feelings, 3. giving or seeking information, 4. facilitating social interaction through the performance of communication rituals, and 5. the ability to imagine. These five functions of communication then could form the basis for organizing communication instruction. Instruction in these areas, Allen and Brown held, would lead to increased communication competence.
Brown (1976) also described the importance of interaction strategies as a part of interpersonal competence. He reviewed a number of definitions of interpersonal competence (Bochner and Kelley 1974; Foote and Cottrell 1955; Weinstein 1969) and concluded that competence, as a skill “is dependent upon the ability to take the role of another accurately, the possession of a varied and large repertoire of lines-of-action, and the possession of interpersonal resources that equip one with situationally appropriate tactics” (p. 72). He suggested that communication education can enhance a student’s communication repertoire and help develop the ability to take the role of the other.
The National Communication (NCA) continued its exploration of communication competence with the publication of Assessing Functional Communication (Larson et al. 1978). This book’s focus on functional communication began with an attempt to distinguish between communication competence and communication effectiveness. Communication competence “implies a minimal level of ability, basically with respect to two characteristics: 1. meeting the minimal communicative demands of a situation and 2. exhibiting socially appropriate behaviors” (Larson et al. 1978: 2). For example, responding appropriately to a request for directions with recognition of the purpose of the request, and either providing the requested information or saying that, information is not known, would demonstrate minimal competence. “At the core of communication competence is the notion that communication is competent if it meets the functional demands of the situation” (p. 2).
This source continued by reviewing other writers of the same time period who attempted to clarify communication effectiveness. For example, Bearison and Cassel (1975) spoke of communication effectiveness as the ability of a speaker to meet his/her listener’s information needs by coordinating the speaker’s own perspective of the communication topic with the perspective of the listener. McCroskey, Larson, and Knapp (1971) held that effectiveness could come from a wide range of outcomes including attaining communication goals, greater understanding, attitude or belief change, or even being liked by someone. In these writings, effectiveness seemed to imply the attainment of a personal goal beyond merely appropriately meeting the demands of the situation. As we will see in definitions provided in other sections of this chapter, communication competence became a blend of appropriateness (respecting norms and expectations) and effectiveness (goal attainment).
Beginning in the 1970s and continuing to the present day, members of NCA and other disciplinary scholars in the U.S. developed suggested lists of competencies, as outlined in Table 1. These sources each attempt to identify the relevant dimensions of communication knowledge and skills that constitute a comprehensive description of competent communication.
Tab. 1: U.S. Scholars’ descriptions of communication competencies, 1970s to present.
| Development of Functional Communication Competencies Pre K-Grade 6 and Development of Functional Communication Competencies Grades 7-12. | Barbara Wood (1976a, 1976b) |
| The basics in speaking and listening for high school graduates: What should be assessed? | Bassett, Whittington, and Staton-Spicer (1978) |
| Essential speaking and listening skills for elementary school students | Backlund (1985) |
| The progress of a study identifying the speaking and communication skills of college graduates | Corrallo (1994) |
| National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identifying College Graduate's Essential Skills in Writing, Speech and Listening, and Critical Thinking | Jones (1995) |
| Communication is Life: Essential College Sophomore Speaking and Listening Competencies | Quianthy (1990) |
| Speaking, Listening, and Media Literacy Standards for K Through 12 Education | National Communication Association (1996) |
| What college students should know and be able to do | Rubin and Morreale (2000) |
| Communication curricula: History, recommendations, resources | Morreale and Backlund (2002) |
2.2Communication competence in public education in the U.S.
The efforts of NCA and public school language arts teachers did much to expand the inclusion of speaking and listening skills in public schools. This inclusion though was partially due to the competence movement and partially due to a widening recognition of the importance of speaking and listening instruction in public education. The competence movement declined in momentum by the middle of the 1980s. The efforts that followed, both at the K–12 and higher education levels, were motivated partly by the competence movement, but many of the changes in public schools regarding speaking and listening were not tied to “competence” directly. Other than occasional calls and reminders that communication competence should be an integral part of K–12 education, little of significance occurred until the Common Core English Language Arts State Standards were developed in 2008–2009 and adopted (at this writing) by 45 states (http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy Standards). In this national initiative, anchor standards were included for “Comprehension and Collaboration” and “Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas”. These communication standards/competencies were implemented in 2014–2015 and have the potential to significantly impact the teaching of communication in K–12 schools across the U.S.
Against the backdrop just provided on the origins and development of the general notion of competent communication, we now turn our attention to a closer examination of definitions of the concept itself. Precisely, what is communication competence, and how has it been defined and conceptualized over time?
3Definitions of communication competence and conceptual challenges
Scholars and teachers have provided a variety of definitions of communication competence and related terms such as interpersonal competence, functional competence, and social competence. It is not the place of this chapter to sort out all these definitional opinions and arrive at the “best” definition. Rather, our purpose here is twofold: 1. to describe the evolutionary history of these definitions, and 2. to briefly illustrate the most central definitional issues.
We begin with the word competence itself. In the preceding section, we described the emergence of the term as part of the competency movement in education during the 1950s and 1960s. The competency movement, for all of its positive effects, did not sufficiently define the word competence. Years later, Parks (1994) noted that the concept of competence means many things to different people and he suggested that a number of issues must be considered before any sort of coherent conceptualization can be determined. These issues, among others, included a basic definition of competence, whether competence is to be judged from an actor’s or an observer’s perspective, whether competence entails cognition or behavior, whether people are competent in some generalized sense or only in terms of specific situations, and whether competence requires behavior that is both appropriate and effective. Many of the questions raised by Parks were addressed comprehensively by Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) and in this volume in Chapters 3, 8, 9, and 10. The summary that follows is necessarily brief, and the reader is referred to the clarifying work of Spitzberg and Cupach for more in-depth examination of these issues.
3.1Origins of definitions
Early writings on communication competence followed patterns similar to the emergence of any new concept with a focus on the questions: “How do we define it?” and “How do we separate it from similar concepts?” Beginning with the word competence, Argyris (1965) provided a well-accepted definition of the term when he stated “The competence of a living organism means its fitness or ability to carry on those transactions with the environment, which result in its maintaining itself, growing and flourishing” (p. 59). Many later writers echoed that basic definition. Argyris continued by saying the competent organism is one that has the “know-ledge and skills to interact effectively with its environment so that its existence is maintained and possibly enhanced” (p. 15). Most interesting in this description is the emphasis on knowledge and skills that are appropriate to the context. These characteristics will be reflected in later descriptions of the nature and essential components of communication competence. Another early writer, Hymes (1971), used the term to refer to the knowledge an individual has about the use of language in communication. Hymes pointed out that the first and perhaps most important definitional issue is a question about competence being rooted in knowledge or in behavior.
Chomsky (1965), in combining the term competence with linguistics, made a distinction between linguistic competence and linguist performance in that competence was “… the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language … the finite system of rules that enable him to comprehend and produce an infinite variety of novel sentences” (Nicholson 1974: 4). This view excluded performance, because “… performance is not competence but the expression or realization of competence in behavior” (Larson et al. 1978: 16). The distinction made by Chomsky between competence and performance fit for describing linguistics. However, harking back to Argyris’ emphasis on environment and behavior, theorists in communication competence moved away from Chomsky’s distinction to a full consideration of the role of behavior in defining communication competence.
Building on these explanations, early definitions focused on behavior. Wie-mann (1977) defined communication competence as “the ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviors in order that he may successfully accomplish his own interpersonal goals, while maintaining the face and line of his fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation” (p. 195). Backlund (1978) pointedly defined it as “the ability of an individual to demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate communicative behavior in a given situation” (p. 21). Parks (1994) offered this definition: “Communicative competence represents the degree to which individuals perceive they have satisfied their goals in a given social situation without jeopardizing their ability or opportunity to pursue their other subjectively more important goals” (p. 175). These definitions seem to stress communicating effectively and appropriately, regardless of what the situation expects of the individual. We now explore the challenge of understanding communication competence by considering some of the referents contained in these definitions in more depth.
3.2Communication competence and competent behavior
The notion of behavior as integral to communication competence had its beginnings during the same period as Chomsky’s description of linguistic competence. Indeed, competent behaviors came to be seen as necessary to individual mental health. In the 1950s, Sullivan (1953) placed interpersonal competence at the center of effective human functioning. Later, Wine (1981) described a new health competence model that echoed Sullivan and situated competent behavior at the center of positive human functioning and mental health. This theme was extended in the 1960s and 1970s through the development of the human potential movement. Maslow (1964) described the necessity for competent (though he didn’t use that term) communication as a component of the “fully actualized person”. Peak human functioning, in Maslow’s view, was based in communication and relationships with others. Rogers (1965) focused even more on communication behaviors in his description of the “ideal” person in On Becoming a Person. These books, and numerous others, attempted to identify the characteristics of positive human functioning and adjustment that would lead not only to social competence, but also to richer, more rewarding lives, all based on competent communication. At about the same time, Hymes (1971) indicated that competence is understood to be dependent on two things: (tacit) knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge to both reach personal goals and to enhance life.
Conversely, other writers described the relationship between social incompetence and mental illness. For example, Zigler and Phillips (1960, 1961) and Zigler and Levine (1981) conducted a number of studies that correlated the inability to communicate competently in social situations with a variety of mental illnesses and pathologies. At the risk of over-simplifying the point, competent communication behavior is an indicator of a competent person; incompetent communication may indicate a range of personal and mental issues.
Writings on both sides of this issue, actualization and pathology, clearly conceived of competent communication as situated in social judgments of mental health. If a person seeks to be a mentally healthy human being, then that person must learn the behaviors of a competent communicator. This point then leads to a consideration of competence as a social phenomenon.
3.3Communication competence and social judgment
If we accept the foregoing as true, then communication competence shifts from being something a person “has” or “does” to something a person is judged to have or do by others. This perspective suggests an array of issues and a related term – relational competence. Relational competence focuses on effectiveness and the perceptions of competence by the interactants in a given conversation or relationship. In an earlier writing, Goffman (1963) stated that relationship outcomes are framed in a mutual interdependence among people involved in an interaction. Competent communication is considered a coordinated process in which individuals achieve goals in a prosocial fashion. Wiemann (1977) recognized this relationship in his description of the competent communicator as the person who can have his/her way in the relationship, while maintaining a mutually acceptable definition of that relationship.
Interestingly, Parks (1994) noted that actor and observer judgments of competence are only minimally related to each other. A series of studies by Spitzberg (1982, 1986) supported Parks’ notion by finding little or no correlation between actors’ self-evaluations of their own competence and the ratings of them provided by their conversational partners. Parks suggested that this difference in evaluations can be explained by the differences in conceptualization of competence from each communicator’s point-of-view. Communicators tend to conceive of their own competence from a goal-accomplishment perspective (e.g., “Did I accomplish my goals?”), while observers tend to judge competence from a perspective of social expectations (e.g., “Does s/he fit in?”). It is clear though, that the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Much of the time, the achievement of personal goals and self-efficacy is rooted in the ability to be seen by others as appropriate. If competence becomes a social judgment, and that judgment is rooted partly in the appropriateness of a specific communication behavior, then further examination of appropriateness is in order.
3.4Communication competence and appropriateness
Spitzberg (1988) argued that once contextual factors are implied, so is the concept of appropriateness or acceptability in that given context. Communication competence writers commonly ask for knowledge of what is appropriate in a given context, rather than what is appropriate, as in the case of linguistic or grammatical competence. Thus, Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) suggested that communicative competence may be defined as the ability to adapt messages appropriately to the given interaction context. Still, appropriateness is problematic. Judgments of competence and appropriateness frequently are in the mind of the observer who makes the judgment based on a multitude of factors. If we put the preceding ideas together, we now have a concept of communication competence that is rooted in performed behavior, evaluated by the observer (not the actor), and the evaluation is based on appropriateness.
However, many writers about competence believe that appropriateness is not a sufficient defining criterion. Effectiveness becomes part of the definitional mix. Considering effectiveness, Spitzberg then described communication competence as the extent to which speakers achieve desired outcomes [effectiveness] through communication behavior acceptable to a situation (appropriateness) (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984; Morreale, Spitzberg, and Barge 2013). Similarly, Rubin (1994) stated that “communication competence requires knowledge of appropriate and effective communication behaviors, a repertoire of skills which correspond to that knowledge, and the motivation to perform those skills in a socially appropriate and effective manner” (p. 75). These conceptualizations emphasize the accomplishment of personal goals through appropriate communication behavior, which brings to mind the matter of the communicator’s intentions for communicating.
3.5Communication competence and intentionality
Larson et al. (1978) posed two interesting questions: Does a person have to make a conscious decision about what to do in order to be considered competent? Or is merely the demonstration of behavior sufficient evidence for competence? For example, one of this chapter’s authors attended a home show at a county fair and watched a pitchman demonstrate a kitchen utensil. The pitchman was effective and persuaded many people to buy it. The author judged him highly competent and invited him to give a guest lecture in a persuasion class. When the pitchman arrived, it quickly became obvious that he could not explain a single persuasive technique. He could demonstrate the behavior but had no knowledge of how or why it worked. People judged him as competent, and he did intend to be competent, but he could not describe how or why he constructed his communication behavior in the manner he did.
Moore (1994) stated the case this way: “To judge another person’s communication competence, we must have evidence that the individual not only can perform the behavior in question, but also possesses the required knowledge of the behavior. We have all seen the student who effectively exhibits an appropriate behavior in a speech, but who, upon further questioning, cannot explain why he or she used that behavior as opposed to others” (p. 89). The key distinction here is the difference between intentional and unintentional competence. Unintentional competence is likely accidental competence or competence that is situationally bound (such as that pitchman) and not necessarily repeatable. Intentional competence and the knowledge of how to develop competent communication strategies in a variety of situations is far more desirable. The communicator can analyze a situation, select the most appropriate and effective communication behavior, and skillfully implement that behavior. The combination of knowledge and behavior will likely lead to more competent encounters than mere behavioral skill alone.
Parks (1994) pointed to what he sees as a false distinction between cognition and behaviors. Accordingly, Parks says, “action occurs on both sides of the skin, cognition and overt behavior are merely different aspects of the same larger process” (p. 591). He stated that to be competent, we must not only “know” and “know how”, but also we must “do” and “know what we did” (p. 591). Thus, intentionality, or at least some degree of intentionality, on the part of the communicator is required for communication competence to exist. Few would argue then that competence is only behavior, that no cognitive awareness is necessary. Depending on the complexity of the situation, and as a communicator develops increased levels of competence, knowledge and intentionality become progressively more important.
Our overview of the development of the concept of communication competence has led us now to describe, if not define, competence in this way:
Competent communication involves intentional communication behaviors performed by the actor to effectively accomplish his or her goals, which are subsequently evaluated by the observer as competent, using the criterion of appropriateness.
This description implies consideration of the skills and behaviors exhibited by the actor, and the underlying knowledge and motivation held by that actor, which can result in a judgment of communication competence on the part of the observer. While the actor’s self-perception of his or her competence may be of some importance, the impression of competence on the observer, based on the following components of competence, is most critical.
4The components of communication competence
Over the years, scholars studying communication competence have attempted to identify general dimensions or components of competence, in which variations in performance can affect perceptions of effectiveness and appropriateness. These attempts raised an initial question about whether competence is a set of skills that can be identified, and perhaps taught and learned, or a set of traits inherent in individuals as “natural” to them as communicators. Parks (1994), for example, believed that competence was an environmental response to a specific situation rather than a cluster of personality traits held by the actor. While that debate is not examined here, the reader can seek more information from communication scholars who have examined the question (Beatty, McCroskey, and Valencic 2001).
The “nature/nurture” debate aside, many dimensions of competence have been proposed, discovered, and/or named. Given agreement that judgments of competence are rooted in individual interactions, some researchers have investigated the relationship between performance of specific communicative messages and global ratings of competence (Spitzberg 1984). Those efforts focused on what specific communication behaviors lead to a judgment of competence. A chronological review of the work on components of competence over several decades, presented in Table 2, illustrates the diversity of thinking in the area, as well as some degree of consensus on what constitutes communication competence.
Tab. 2: Components of communication competence. 1950s to 1980s.
In spite of some variations in the identified components of competence outlined in Table 2, there seems to be some agreement on several dimensions. One clearly identified component of communicative competence, though different terms may describe it, is empathy (including affiliation and support). Some form of behavioral flexibility (adaptation) and interaction management also are present in many lists of components. There also is agreement that communication competence is characterized by the communicator being able to achieve his or her communicative goals (effectiveness), using communication behavior deemed acceptable to the situation and context (appropriateness). Morreale, Spitzberg, and Barge (2013) suggest that, in any situation, a person can be inappropriate and ineffective, inappropriate and effective, appropriate and ineffective, or appropriate and effective. Moreover, these authors indicated that achieving the perception of competence in the situation is more likely if a person is motivated to communicate competently, knowledgeable about the communication process, and skilled in communicating in the given context.
Variations in what communication scholars think constitutes competence has not stopped numerous other fields of study and academic disciplines from adopting and adapting the concept to fit their own needs. The next section of this chapter briefly discusses communication competence in several fields and disciplines other than communication.
5Application of communication competence to other fields and disciplines
If one searches for the term “communication competence” in any scholarly database, it becomes apparent that an array of other areas of inquiry have folded communication competence into their research. The content of the chapters in this present volume bears witness to the presence of the scholarly examination of competence in an array of communication contexts. Given this situation, one might reasonably ask if the use of the term in these fields is congruent with communication theory and scholarship. Have these fields developed their own conceptualizations of competence? To what extent have they relied on definitions and descriptors from the communication discipline and similar disciplines? Conversely, have conceptualizations from other disciplines informed understanding of competence in the communication discipline? We now consider these questions through an examination of the literature on communication competence in a small sample of disciplines, which in fact reside in or near the communication discipline, (media studies, medicine, and business). Some of the studies discussed here were conducted by researchers in those disciplines, while others were conducted in collaboration with communication scholars.
Over the past few years, the means by which people communicate with each other have expanded in numerous and amazing ways. Some of these means or communication channels (instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter, texting, etc.) have been loosely referred to as “social media”. The name is indicative of social media’s function – socializing through various media. As we now describe, the research on communication competence and media, including social media, has been conducted by both communication scholars and researchers in other fields.
Looking back, in 1998, Arneson and Arnett addressed the matter of communication competence in the information age. While not directly related to media, their premise held that communication faculty need to pay close attention to the developing demands of the information age in which students run the risk of information overload. They believed that a student’s communication competence is and will be impacted by increasing levels of information, and that competence must include the ability to handle that information. The lack of an ability to process the amount of information could lead to ineffective decisions about communication behavior due to incomplete or inadequate information.
Moving into the 21st century, Jonas, Boos, and Sassenberg (2002) examined computer-mediated communication in management training programs. Interestingly, these researchers based their view of competence on Wiemann (1977) and examined competence within a defined relationship. They focused on communication in computer-mediated situations and defined failure as communication acts that do not fulfill the intention of the sender due to false, inappropriate, or exaggerated use of the medium. Their view was clearly from the sender, not the receiver’s viewpoint, as it attributed a lack of competence with misuse of the medium.
In 2006, Spitzberg launched a series of investigations into computer-mediated communication competence. Spitzberg postulated a theory of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence that exists on a continuum. As CMC competence increases, co-orientation, appropriateness, effectiveness, satisfaction, and preferred relational outcomes are more likely to occur. Competence, in this sense, is based on some of the same variables or components of competence as in face-to-face interactions, with the addition of media as an intervening factor. A competent user of computer-mediated-communication will possess four specific skills (Spitzberg 2006: 1. concern for one’s CMC interaction partner, 2. use of interaction management to engage a partner actively and control the time and relevance of communication, 3. expressiveness or filling the CMC interaction with emotion, and 4. displaying confidence, mastery, and comfortableness as a CMC interactant.
Spitzberg’s article spawned other studies that applied his CMC model to various contexts. For example, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter (2007) investigated the relationships among computer-mediated communication competence, apprehension, self-efficacy, perceived confidence, and social presence. They found positive relationships among communication competence, self-efficacy, perceived confidence, and social presence, and a negative relationship between competence and apprehension. The study reinforced Spitzberg’s (2006) notion that people must be motivated to be competent in a CMC environment, possess specialized knowledge and technical know-how, and learn the conventions, rules, and roles that affect CMC interactions.
Kelly, Keaten, Hazel, and Williams (2010) investigated competence in CMC with a particular focus on reticence. These researchers found that high reticent individuals perceive themselves as more competent communicators when their communication occurs online. The asynchronous nature of email and other social media produces a sense of control that may lead to increased self-perceived competence and decreased anxiety. CMC can give the communicator a feeling of safety and thus reported increases in perceptions of communication competence.
This brief review does not do justice to the extensive body of research currently being conducted in media studies on computer-mediated communication. However, it is clear that any use of computer-mediated-communication can impact perceptions of communication competence due to the fact it adds at least one more step in the communication process. Chapter 7 of this volume summarizes research and theory on computer-mediated competence.
5.2Medicine
The examination of communication within the medical community has expanded considerably over the past thirty years. Beginning in the 1980s, scholars in the discipline of communication began to pay significant attention to the subfield of health communication. Journals such as Health Communication began to publish scholarship on numerous aspects of health communication, including such topics as doctor–patient relationships, medical information flow analysis, health information dissemination, disease prevention, communication disorders, and similar topics. This leads to a central question: Does the concept of communication competence appear in and influence any of the research in medical communication? A review of literature quickly reveals that the answer is yes. Next, is the use of this term within the medical community congruent with the definitions and concepts about competence generated in communication studies, as summarized earlier in this chapter? It appears that the answer to this question is mixed.
One communication researcher, Kreps, with other colleagues including medically-educated professionals, developed and tested a relational model for health communication competence (Kreps 1988, 2001; Query and Kreps 1996) that was firmly rooted in communication literature but extended to include health communication competencies. The patient is at the center of the model, surrounded by medically-related factors, all of which impact communication competence. Behaviors associated with this model of health communication competence include empathy, non-judgmental listening, respect, message congruence, and interaction management. The model continues to be refined and tested, and it has attained wide acceptance in the health communication literature.
Another group of researchers, including communication scholar Cegala, developed an extensive body of research focused on analyzing the role of communication competence during medical interviews and consultations (Cegala, McNeilis, and McGee 1995; McGee and Cegala 1998). Their view of communication competence is concerned with language use in medical settings and includes communication goals (the criterion for effectiveness) and appropriateness. This perspective fits well with the definitions of communication competence discussed earlier in the chapter. These researchers continued their work with the development of a medical communication competence scale (Cegala, Coleman, and Turner 1998). The scale assessed both the patient and provider’s perceptions, focusing on information provision, information seeking, and preparedness.
Other studies in the medical community also have drawn on the work of and collaborated with communication scholars. Wright and colleagues (Wright et al. 2010; Wright 2011) applied the concept of communication competence to health workplace issues such as conflict, job burnout, and job satisfaction. Their definition of competence aligns with the definitions in this chapter, and they relied on Kreps’ model of health communication competence.
Similarly, articles about communication competence of children from alcoholic families (Grant, Rosenfeld, and Cissna 2004), facilitator competence in medical education (Bylund, Brown, and Lubrano di Ciccone 2009), communication competence and informal caregivers (Lobchuk 2006; Query and Wright 2003), clinical supervision (Farmer 1988), and patient education (Parchman et al. 2009) all attest to the usefulness of the concept of competence, as described in communication literature, in the medical field. With the exception of the first article by Grant and colleagues, the other articles are authored by medically educated professionals. Certainly, researchers who come from a communication background tend to draw on communication literature as their source for definitions of communication competence. But it also is interesting to note that researchers with non-communication backgrounds are drawing on communication science for their research. In this present volume, Chapter 19 considers one of the less studied areas of inquiry in this field, managing uncertainty in medical encounters.
5.3Business
Another field where competent communication is considered important, and where we hear frequent calls for more effective communication skills, is business, which is not surprising. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers Job Outlook 2013 survey, communication is the highest-ranking skill that employers look for in new recruits. Given that level of attention, we can expect to see considerable interest in the concept of communication competence in the business literature and scholarly research. The following description of articles provides a representative sample of the application of communication competence to business-related issues and challenges.
Communication researchers early on began to apply the concept of communication competence to practical situations. For example, in 1982, Monge, Bachman, Dillard and Eisenberg wrote one of the first articles that applied the concept to model testing and scale development in a workplace setting. Another early study to use the concept in the business literature was a study by Berman and Hellweg (1989) that looked at the communication competence of supervisors. Then, Spano and Zimmerman (1995) examined social judgments of interpersonal communication competence in selection interviews. Both of these studies were solidly based in the communication literature on communication competence.
Also in 1995, Hass and Arnold published a study about the role of listening in social judgments of communication competence with co-workers. Flauto (1999) researched the link between leadership and communication competence, using numerous communication sources to define the concept of competence. Later, McKinney and Kimsey (2004) extended the reach of communication competence by examining Vietnamese business managers’ perceptions of communication competence, as it relates to conflict management style, basing their work on communication literature. Payne (2005) explored the relationship between communication competence, job performance, and supervisory roles and based her operational definition of communication competence on Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1984) work. She defined organizational communication competence as “the judgment of successful communication where interactants’ goals are met using messages that are perceived as appropriate and effective within the organizational context” (p. 64). Algren and Eichhorn (2007) also used the scholarship of Spitzberg and his colleagues, together with Delia’s early conceptualizations of competence, in an exploration of gender differences and the cognitive communication competence of public relations practitioners.
Another body of scholarship, while focused on communication competence in business settings, has not directly referred to communication literature. Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam and Jablin (1999) analyzed the communication competence of Thai organizations and managers. These researchers found that Thais who are “perceived to be communicatively competent know how to avoid conflict with others; control their emotions; display respect, tactfulness, modesty, and politeness; and use appropriate pronouns in addressing others” (p. 384). It is interesting to note from this study the role of culture in the social judgment of competence. This list is quite different than those provided earlier in this chapter.
Pope-Ruark (2008), writing in the Business Communication Quarterly, examined communication competence in interviews. Pope-Ruark only used the term of competence in a generic fashion, with no specific definition or associated behaviors derived from communication scholarship. Lehtonen (2011) researched communication competence in “PechaKucha” presentations (a form of PowerPoint presentation in which 20 slides are shown for 20 seconds each). Lehtonen viewed competence as a type of knowledge that enables individuals to understand colleagues’ professional capabilities and is linked to credibility and professionalism. Downing (2011) researched the communication competence of sales agents in call centers, but did not directly define communication competence nor refer to communication literature. In his study, the communication behaviors he identified were interpersonal sensitivity, speaking confidently, attentiveness, perceptiveness, and responsiveness.
As these studies indicate, the concept of communication competence, if not always labeled as such, has achieved recognition and proven useful to scholarship in areas of inquiry such as media studies, business, and medicine. Thus, the researchers in the discipline of communication who focus on communication competence – notably Spitzberg and other colleagues – apparently have found significant audiences outside their own discipline. In addition the concept has enjoyed a strong presence internationally and interculturally.
6International and intercultural perspectives on communication competence
An extensive body of literature on communication competence from international, intercultural, European and Asian viewpoints is available elsewhere (Deardorff 2009; Gudykunst and Mody 2002; Spitzberg and Changnon 2009). In this present volume, Chapter 20 emphasizes theory and research on communication competence from integrative intercultural and intergroup perspectives. Chapter 12 focuses on culture and competence, ethnicity, and race. As would be expected, this scholarship is produced by researchers in the U.S. and from around the world, and its significance now is enhanced by globalization and communication technologies ubiquitous in the 21st century.
To provide a framework for appreciating Chapters 12 and 20, here in this chapter we consider the theoretical discussion of communicative rationality and communication competence provided by German philosopher and sociologist, Habermas (Eriksen and Weigard 2004). Like our earlier descriptions of competence as effective and goal-oriented, Habermas’ approach to competence rests on the argument that all communication and speech acts have an inherent telos (Greek word for “end”) or goal and, according to Habermas, the goal is mutual understanding. This internationally respected philosopher further argues that human beings have come to possess, through evolution, the communicative competence that can bring about such understanding, even across international and intercultural divides. Accordingly, the potential to transform the culturally diverse world and achieve a more humane and just society can be facilitated through communication competence. Habermas contends that communicative competence and the ability to reason across differences are evolutionarily unique to human beings. On that high note regarding the importance of communication competence within, between, and among cultures and societies, we now turn our attention to where such scholarship might proceed in the future.
7Conclusion and recommendations for future scholarly inquiry
This chapter has traced the history and development of the concept of communication competence that is expansively explored in subsequent chapters in this volume. It is clear that the term enjoys wide popularity, nationally in the U.S., across fields and disciplines, and internationally, but it suffers from definitional inconsistency. As Table 2 illustrates, scholarly opinions have varied when it comes to identifying the knowledge and skills associated with and contributing to the presence or absence of communication competence. Dubin (1969), in his book on theory building, said that a theory must have an identifiable domain or area in which it operates. He likened domain to a fence – what is inside the fence and what is not. Communication competence still suffers, to some extent, from a lack of a well-defined fence. As noted earlier, attempts have been made to define the domain of communication competence, but consensus and the boundaries remain ill-defined. It seems as if every possible communication variable has been identified as an antecedent, predictor, or component of communication competence. Different scholars have different theories of competence, and the likelihood of everyone agreeing, either on a definition or constituent variables or components, seems unlikely, though it is surely necessary.
That effort should go forward with particular attention to understanding and perhaps even assessing communication competence in specific cultures around the world, as well as interculturally. We do not know enough yet about how the concept varies across and between cultures, nor do we have sufficient understanding of how individuals can become more competent at communicating within and across the boundaries of country and culture. Pointedly, Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005: 137) state that while intercultural communication competence is becoming a more relevant area of study in our increasingly multicultural communities, a model of that competence and a scale that translates well in different cultures is not yet developed.
Given Habermas’ belief in the potential for communication competence to address the challenges that exist in the globalized and technologically-mediated 21st century, the study of this competence is critical. Thereby, the synthesis of literature in this volume mandates that scholars, educators, trainers, and even leaders in academic associations across countries and cultures should consider new and unique ways to convene, collaborate, and develop greater understanding of communication competence. Such convening and collaborating, of course, should consider new approaches and directions for how we study competence but also how we teach and train about it.
The above recommendations are not intended to suggest that all the world’s challenges are communication problems, and that communication competence will solve all the problems. However, many challenges could be better managed by the use of competence attributes such as acceptance of complexity, avoidance of rigidity, other-oriented interaction management, adaptation to others, commitment to message clarity, and empathic listening – to name but a few. Furthermore, and on a more personal level, we know that most individuals who are motivated to communicate competently also get more from life, more success, and more happiness (Harter 1978; Koestner and McClelland 1990). In fact, research shows that competent communicators are healthier and have better relationships (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton 2010; Robles et al. 2014). So competent communication will not solve all the world’s ills, but as the chapters in this book will attest, it can make a very positive difference.
References
Algren, Margaret and Kristen Campbell Eichhorn. 2007. Cognitive communication competence within public relations practitioners: Examining gender differences between technicians and managers. Public Relations Review 33. 77–83.
Allen, R. R. and Kenneth Lee Brown (eds.). 1976. Developing Communication Competence in Children. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.
Arasaratnam, Lily A. and Marya L. Doerfel. 2005. Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29. 137–163.
Argyris, Chris. 1965. Explorations in interpersonal competence. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1. 58–63.
Aristotle. [1941]. Politics. In: Richard McKeon (ed.), Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.
Arneson, Pat and Ronald. C. Arnett. 1998. The praxis of narrative assessment: Communication competence in an information age. ACA bulletin. 27(1). 44–52.
Backlund, Philip. 1978. Defining communication competence. In: Carl Larson, Phil Backlund, Mark Redmond and Alton Barbour (eds.), Assessing Functional Communication 9–26. Falls Church: Speech Communication Association and Educational Research Information Center.
Backlund, Philip. 1985. Essential speaking and listening skills for elementary school students. Communication Education 34. 185–185.
Bassett, Ronald, Nilwon Whittington and Ann Staton-Spicer. 1978. The basics in speaking and listening for high school graduates: What should be assessed? Communication Education 27. 293–303.
Beatty, Michael J., James C. McCroskey and Kristin Marie Valencic. 2001. The biological origins of automated patterns of human interactions. Communication Theory 1. 4–35.
Bearison, David J. and Thomas Z. Cassel. 1975. Cognitive decentration and social codes: Communication effectiveness in your children from differing family contexts. Developmental Psychology 11. 29–36.
Berman, Stuart J. and Susan A. Hellweg. 1989. Perceived supervisor communication competence and supervisor satisfaction as a function of quality circle participation. Journal of Business Communication 26. 103–122.
Bochner, Arthur P. and Clifford W. Kelly. 1974. Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philosophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher 23. 270–301.
Brown, Kenneth Lee. 1976. Applied communication: Learning to communicate in interpersonal situations. In: Ronald Royce Allen and Kenneth Lee Brown (eds.), Developing Communication Competence in Children, 65–149. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.
Bylund, Carma L., Richard F. Brown and Barbara Lubrano di Ciccone. 2009. Preparing for career in medical education: Assessing facilitator competence in a comprehensive communication skills training programme. Medical Education 43(4). 342–349.
Cegala, Donald J., Mary Coleman and Jeanine Turner. 1998. The development and partial assessment of the medical communication competence scale. Health Communication 10. 261–288.
Cegala, Donald, Kelly McNeilis and Deborah McGee. 1995. A study of doctors’ and patients’ perceptions of information processing and communication competence during the medical interview. Health Communication 7. 179–203.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. [l876]. De Oratore. (John Shelby Watson. Trans.) London: George Bell and Sons.
Clark, Ruth Anne and Jesse G. Delia. 1979. Topoi and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal of Speech 65. 187–206.
Conrad, David and Robert Newberry. 2012. Identification and instruction of important business communication skills for graduate business education. Journal of Education for Business 87(2). 112–120. doi:10.1080/08832323.2011.576280
Corrallo, Sal. 1994. The progress of a study identifying the speaking and communication skills of college graduates. In: Sherwyn Morreale and Megan Brooks (eds.), 1994 NCA Summer Conference Proceedings and Prepared Remarks: Assessing College Student Competency in Speech Communication, 51–54. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Dance, Francis E. X. 1958. Speech education in the University of Utopia. Speech Teacher 7. 151–153.
Deardorff, Darla. 2009. The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence. CA: Sage.
Downing, Joe R. 2011. Linking communication competence with call center agents’ sales effectiveness. Journal of Business Communication 48. 409–425.
Dubin, Robert. 1969. Theory Building. New York: Free Press.
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar and Jarle Weigard. 2004. Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Farmer, Stephen. 1988. Communication competence in clinical education/supervision. The Clinical Supervisor 6(2). 29–46.
Feingold, Paul C. 1976. Toward a paradigm of effective communication: An empirical study of perceived communication effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
Fisher, Walter R. 1980. Rationality and the logic of good reasons. Philosophy & Rhetoric 13(2). 121–130.
Flauto, Frank J. 1999. Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication competence. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 6. 86–97.
Foote, Nelson N. and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. 1955. Identity and Interpersonal Competence: A New Direction in Family Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
General Education in School and College. 1953. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.
Grant, Charles H., Lawrence B. Rosenfeld and Kenneth N. Cissna. 2004. The effects of family-of-origin alcohol abuse on the self-perceived communication competence of the children. Communication Research Report 21. 47–59.
Gudykunst, William B. and Bella Mody. 2002. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, Second Edition. CA: Sage.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. Toward a theory of communication competence. Inquiry: An interdisciplinary journal of philosophy 13. 360–375.
Hart Research Associates. 2013, April. It Takes More Than a Major: Employer Priorities for College Learning and Student Success. Washington, DC: Hart Research Associates. Retrieved from: https://www.aacu.org/leap/presidentstrust/compact/2013SurveySummary.cfm
Hart, Roderick P., Robert E. Carlson and William F. Eadie. 1980. Attitudes toward communication and the assessment of rhetorical sensitivity. Communication Monographs 47. 1–22.
Harter, Susan. 1978. Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development 21. 34–64.
Hass, John W. and Christa L. Arnold. 1995. An examination of the role of listening in judgments of communication competence in co-workers. The Journal of Business Communication 32. 123– 139.
Holt, John. 1965/1982. How Children Fail. Boston: De Capo Press.
Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith and J. Bradley Layton. 2010. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine 7(7). 1–20.
Hymes, Dell. 1971. Competence and performance in linguistic theory, In: Renira Huxley and Elisabeth Ingram (eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and Methods, 3–28. New York: Academic Press.
Jones, Elizabeth. 1995. Toward national assessment of communication: A report of the results of the U.S. Department of Education’s survey of communication skills and needs in the U.S. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Antonio.
Kelly, Lynne, James A. Keaten, Michael Hazel and Jason A. Williams. 2010. Effects of reticence, affect for communication channels, and self-perceived competence on usage of instant messaging. Communication Research Reports 27. 131–142.
Koestner, Richard and David C. McClelland. 1990. Perspectives on competence motivation. In: Lawrence A. Pervin (ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 527–548. New York: Guilford.
Kreps, Gary L. 1988. Relational communication in health care. Southern Speech Communication Journal 53. 344–359.
Kreps, Gary L. 2001. The evolution and advancement of health communication inquiry. In: William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Communication Yearbook 24. 231–253. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, Elizabeth A. 1995. Toward National Assessment of Communication: A Report of the Results of the U.S. Department of Education’s Survey of Communication Skills and Needs, U.S. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Antonio.
Jonas, Kai J., Margarete Boos and Kai Sassenberg. 2002. Unsubscribe, pleeezz!!! Management and training of media competence in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsychology and Behavior 5. 315–329.
Larson, Carl, Philip M. Backlund, Mark Redmond and Alton Barbour. 1978. Assessing Functional Communication. SCA and ERIC: Falls Church, VA.
Lehtonen, Miikka. 2011. Communicating competence through PechaKucha presentations. Journal of Business Communication 48. 464–481.
Lobchuk, Michelle M. 2006. Nursing theory and concept development or analysis: Concept analysis of perspective-taking: meeting informal caregiver needs for communication competence and accurate perception. Journal of Advanced Nursing 54. 330–341.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1964. Toward a Psychology of Being, Second Edition. New York: Van Nostrand.
McCroskey, James C., Carl E. Larson and Mark L. Knapp. 1971. An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
McGee, Deborah Socha and Donald J. Cegala. 1998. Patient communication skills training for improved communication competence in the primary care medical consultation. Journal of Applied Communication 26. 412–430.
McKinney, Bruce and William D. Kimsey. 2004. An investigation of Vietnamese business managers’ perception of communication competence and conflict management style, Asian Profile 32. 127–136.
Mohrmann, Gerald P. 1972. The Civile Conversation: Communication in the Renaissance. Speech Monographs 39. 193–204.
Monge, Peter R., Susan G. Bachman, James Price Dillard and Eric M. Eisenberg. 1982. Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. In: M. Burgoon (ed.), Communication Yearbook 5. 505–528. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moore, Michael. 1994. Considering competence. In: Sherwyn P. Morreale and Megan Brooks (eds.), 1994 NCA Summer Conference Proceedings and Prepared Remarks: Assessing College Student Competency in Speech Communication, 86–92. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
Morreale, Sherwyn P. and Philip M. Backlund. 2002. Communication curricula: History, recommendations, resources, Communication Education 51. 2–18.
Morreale, Sherwyn. P. and Judy C. Pearson. 2008. Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education 57. 224–240.
Morreale, Sherwyn P., Brian H. Spitzberg and J. Kevin Barge. 2013. Communication: Motivation, Knowledge, Skills. New York: Peter Lang.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. 2013. Job Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/, August 21, 2013
National Communication Association. 1996. Speaking, Listening, and Media Literacy Standards for K through 12 Education. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Nicholson III, James L. 1974. The strategic use of language: A sociolinguistic view of communication development. Unpublished paper, Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles.
Parchman, Michael L., Dorothy Flannagan, Robert L. Ferrer, and Mike Matamoras. 2009. Communication competence, self-care behaviors and glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient Education and Counseling 77(1). 55–59.
Parks, Malcolm R. 1994. Communication competence and interpersonal control. In: Mark L. Knapp and Gerald R. Miller (eds.), Handbook in Interpersonal Communication, 589–618. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Payne, Holly J. 2005. Reconceptualizing social skills in organizations: Exploring the relationship between communication competence, job performance, and supervisory roles. Journal of Leadership Organizational Studies 11. 63–74.
Pope-Ruark, Rebecca. 2008. The interview project: Reinforcing business communication competence. Business Communication Quarterly 71. 63–67.
Query, Jim L. and Gary L. Kreps. 1996. Testing a relational model for health communication competence among caregivers for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Health Psychology 1. 335–351.
Query Jr., Jim L. and Kevin Wright. 2003. Assessing communication competence in an online study: Toward informing subsequent interventions among older adults with cancer, their lay caregivers, and peers. Health Communication 15. 203–218.
Quianthy, Richard L. 1990. Communication is Life: Essential College Sophomore Speaking and Listening Competencies. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Quintilian. [1903]. Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory; Or Education of an Orator (John Shelby Watson, Trans.). London. George Bell.
Richards, Ivor Armstrong. 1965. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rickheit, Gert and Hans Strohner. 2008. Handbook of Communication Competence. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Robles, Theodore F., Richard B. Slatcher, Joseph M. Trombello, Meghan M McGinn. 2014. Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 149. 140–187.
Rogers, Carl. 1965. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Ruben, Brent D. 1976. Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organizational Studies 1. 334–354.
Rubin, Rebecca B. 1994. Assessment of the cognitive component of communication competence. In: Sherwyn Morreale, Megan Brooks, R. Berko and C. Cooke (eds.), 1994 SCA Summer Conference Proceedings and Prepared Remarks: Assessing College Student Competency in Speech Communication, 73–86. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Rubin, Rebecca B. and Sherwyn P. Morreale. 2000. What college students should know and be able to do. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration 29. 53–65.
Sheridan, Thomas. 1762. A Course of Lectures in Elocution: Together with Two Dissertations on Language; and Some Other Tracts Relative to those Subjects. London: W. Strahan.
Silberman, Charles E. 1970. Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House.
Spano, Shawn and Stephanie Zimmerman. 1995. Interpersonal communication competence in context: Assessing performance in the selection interview. Communication Reports 8. 16–23.
Spitzberg, Brian H. 1982. Relational Competence: An Empirical Test of a Conceptual Model. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Boston.
Spitzberg, Brian H. 1983. Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Education 32. 323–328.
Spitzberg, Brian H. 1986. Relational Competence: Validating a Measure of Conversational Skills. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
Spitzberg, Brian H. 1988. Communication competence: Measure of perceived effectiveness. In: Charles H Tardy (ed.), A Handbook for the Study of Human Communications, 67–107. NJ: Balex.
Spitzberg, Brian H. 2006. Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11. 629–666.
Spitzberg, Brian and Gabrielle Changnon. 2009. Conceptualizing intercultural communication competence. In: Darla Deardorff (ed.), The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 2–52. CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, Brian H. and William R. Cupach. 1984. Interpersonal Communication Competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, Brian H. and Michael L. Hecht. 1984. A component model of relational competence. Human Communication Research 4. 31–37.
Sullivan, Harry Stack. 1953. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, Nongluck and Fredric M. Jablin. 1999. An exploratory study of communication competence in Thai organizations. The Journal of Business Communication 36. 382–418.
Wallace, Karl R., Donald K. Smith and Andrew J. Weaver. 1963. The field of speech: Its purposes and scope in education. Speech Teacher 12. 331–335.
Weinstein, Eugene A. 1969. The development of interpersonal competence. In: David A. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, 753–775. Chicago: Rand McNally.
White, Burton L. 1971. An analysis of excellent early educational practices: Preliminary report.Interchange 2. 71–88.
Wiemann, John M. 1977. Explication and test of a model of communication competence. Human Communication Research 3. 195–213.
Wine, Jeri Dawn. 1981. From defect to competence models. In: Jeri Dawn Wine and Marti Diane Smye (eds.), Social Competence, 3–35. New York: Guilford Press.
Wood, Barbara Sudene. 1976a. Development of Functional Communication Competencies: Pre-K— Grade 6 Urbana, IL: Eric and the Speech Communication Association.
Wood, Barbara Sudene. 1976b. Development of Functional Communication Competencies: Grade 7–12. Urbana, IL: Eric and the Speech Communication Association.
Wrench, Jason S. and Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter. 2007. The relationship between computer-mediated-communication competence, apprehension, self-efficacy, perceived confidence, and social presence. Southern Communication Journal 72. 355–378.
Wright, Kevin B. 2011. A communication competence approach to healthcare worker conflict, job stress, job burnout, and job satisfaction. Journal for Healthcare Quality 3(2). 7–14.
Wright, Kevin B., John A. Banas, Elena Bessarabova and Daniel R. Bernard. 2010. A communication competence approach to examining health care social support, stress, and job burnout. Health Communication 25. 375–382.
Zigler, Edward and Jacob Levine. 1981. Premorbid competence in schizophrenia: What is being measured? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 49. 96–105.
Zigler, Edward and Leslie Phillips. 1960. Social effectiveness and symptomatic behaviors. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61. 231–238.
Zigler, Edward and Leslie Phillips. 1961. Social competence and outcome in psychiatric disorder. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63. 264–271.