REBECCA B.

RUBIN zyxwv
Conceptualization and Measurement of

zyxwv
Interpersonal Communication Motives

Kent State Uniuersity

ELIZABETH M. PERSE
University of Delaware

zyxwv
CAROLE A. BARBATO
Kent State University

The goal of this study was to develop and validate an instrument that could be
used to ascertain motives individuals have for interpersonal communication. A

zyxwvu
28-item scale is presented along with initial information about the scale’s
construct validity. Results indicated there were six prominent motives: pleasure,
affection, inclusion, escape, relaxation, and control. Low communicative appre-
hensives used interpersonal communicationfor pleasure, affection, and control
while high apprehensiues were more aligned with the inclusion motive. The
motives of pleasure, affection; and relaxation were more closely related to
communication satisfaction. In fact, communication satisfaction was best
predicted by low communication apprehension, gender, and the pleasure,
affection, relaxation, and escape communication motives.

I
NTERPERSONAL communication serves a variety of func-
tions in everyday life. It is through communication that people
shape and nurture their self-concepts, make decisions about

Rebecca B. Rubin (Ph.D., Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1975)is associate

professor of speech communication at Kent State University. Elizabeth M.Perse (Ph.D.,
Kent State University, 1987)is assistant professor of communication at the University of
Delaware. Carole A. Barbato (M.A.,Kent State University, 1975)is adoctoral student at
Kent State University, and instructor of speech communication at Kent State
University-East Liverpool. This research was supported in part by an award from the
Kent State University Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. An earlier version of
this article, under the title “Interpersonal Uses of Communication,”was presented at the
International Communication Association convention, Montreal, Canada, May 1987.

zyxwvu
zyxwvuts
The authors wish to thank Tracy Wellmon,Lori Baird, and Cameron Armstrong for their
assistance in conducting the study and Alan Rubin for his thoughtful comments on the
manuscript.

Human CommunicationResearch, Vol. 14 No.4, Summer 1988 602-628

0 1988 International Communication Association

602
 zyxwzy
zy
Rubin, P e w , Barbato / COMMUNICATION MOTIVES 603

zyxwv
their lives, share information with others, and express ideas and
innermost feelings. People communicate with others for even more

zyxwvu
specific reasons: to make decisions about where to eat or what
proposal to support, to show others love or to express a protest, to gain
information or advice about an important decision, or just to pass the
time away. As obvious as it is that communication functions as a
method of need-fulfillment, little research has been conducted to
determine why people initiate communication with other people. This
article reports the development of an instrument designed to measure
interpersonal communication motives and provides preliminary evi-
dence of the instrument’sconstruct validity by examining relationships
between these motives and interpersonalpredispositionsand outcomes.
Interpersonal communication research has, for the most part,
focused on how interpersonal interaction takes place-descriptions of
communication behaviors in interpersonal relationships. Studies of
communication relational levels, communication rules, situations,
verbal and nonverbal language, social influence, and relationship
development typify the scope of how interpersonal communication
occurs in everyday life (see, e.g., Knapp & Miller, 1985).Descriptions of
these communicationbehaviors are important first steps in understand-
ing interpersonal communication motives.
Three major lines of research have been developed to describe
interpersonal communication behaviors. The first line focused on
identifying categories of interpersonal behaviors. For example, Boch-
ner, Kaminski, and Fitzpatrick (1977) used Lorr and McNair’s (1965)
Interpersonal Behavior Inventory to determine “self” and “best-liked
other” factors of manifest, observable interpersonal behavior. Ten
behavioral categories were found: control, nurturance, dependency,
detachment-affiliation, deference, mistrust, submissiveness, recogni-
tion, abasement, and sociability. Although respondents reported their
actions, rather than motives for actions, the categories that emerged

zyx
support interpersonal communication motives discussed here.
A second line of research focused on the structure of conversation.
Wish, DAndrade, and Goodnow (1980), for example, formulated a
structural framework for speech acts. They found force to be an
important dimension in speech. Similarly, Triandis (1977) found four
basic dimensions of social behavior: association/dissociation,super-
ordination/subordination,intimacy/formality,and overt/covert. These
dimensions follow from an earlier notion (Triandis, Vassiliou, &
Nassiakou, 1968) that behaviors are manifestations of behavioral
intentions, the “instructions people give to themselves to behave in
604 zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyx
HUMAN COMMUNICATIONRESFARCH / Summer 1988

certain ways” (Triandis, 1980, p. 203), which are founded in general

intentions or goals.
The third line of research consisted of major dimensions describing
relational communication, or themes of everyday discourse. Burgoon
and Hale (1984) argued that relationships could be described along
seven major dimensions: control, intimacy, emotional arousal, com-
posure, similarity,formality,and task-socialorientation.Inherent in this
scheme were: Schutz’s (1966)need dimensions of inclusion, affection,
and control; Leary’s (1957)dimensions of dominance and love; Millar
and Rogers’s (1976) themes of control, trust, and intimacy; and
Mehrabian and Ksionzky’s (1972) six factors of nonverbal behavior:
affiliation, responsiveness, relaxation, distress, intimate position, and
ingratiation. Burgoon and Hale (1987)tested their dimensions, and 12
continua used to define relationships emerged. These were based on
the type of verbal and nonverbal messages relational partners use with
one another during interaction. Receptivity, dominance, task/social
orientation, and nonimmediacy were the main themes in relationships.
These lines of research, then, have attempted to identify major
dimensions of relationships or categories of behavior. They have not
examined the reasons why people initiate conversations with others
(i.e., communication motives).

Functional Approaches to
Interpersonal Communication
An important second step of inquiry into why people communicate
as they do involves functional analysis. Interpersonal communication
literature taking a functional approach reveals that communication
serves a variety of functions. According to Dance and Larson (1976),
communication bonds individuals with the environment by helping
them develop and maintain self-concepts(linking),it enablesindividuals
to move from self-centered to other-centered activities (mentation),
and it allows individuals to regulate their own or others’ behaviors
(regulation). Bochner (1984) viewed persuasion and expression of
affect as two general motives for interpersonal communication that
serve five interpersonal bonding functions: fostering favorable im-
pressions, organizing relationships, constructing/validating conjoint
worlds, expressingfeelingsand thoughts, and protecting vulnerabilities.
Clark and Delia (1979),in describing communication functions as first
steps in forming communication strategies, identified instrumental
 zyxw
zyx
zy
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATIONM O W

(problem solving), interpersonal (relationship development), and iden-

tity (impression management) objectives.
605

This last scheme resembles Schutz’s (1966) Fundamental Inter-

personal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory that suggests that
individuals have three basic interpersonal needs. Inclusion is the need
to belong to or include others in a circle of acquaintances or friends.
Control is the need to exert power over others or to give power over
one’s self to others. Affection is the need to love or be loved by others.
Schutz developed several instruments to measure the expressed
(individual-initiated) and desired (other-initiated) behavior of an in-
dividual in these three areas. This theory has been useful in both
interpersonal and group interaction settings, but its appeal is due
mainly to its wide applicability rather than its strong theoretical
foundation and consistent predictions over time (Armstrong& Roback,
1977).
One last functional model provided a relationship typology based
upon four functions that relationships serve-emotional-expressive,
confirmatory, change-influence, and instrumental (Bennis, Schein,
Steele, & Berlew, 1968). Similar to Schutz’s (1966) postulate of
reciprocity of needs, the type of communication coincides with the
relationship goal. For example, an emotional-expressive relationship
would be characterized by transactions dealing with feelings, and a
change-influencerelationship would be marked by sharing information
in order to achieve a common goal. Each of these interpersonal models,
then, suggests various functionsof verbal and relational communication.
Writers also have speculated about the functions of nonverbal
communication. Most have reiterated Argyle’s (1972) two main func-
tions: controlling the interaction, and highlighting or replacing verbal
communication. Harrison (1973), for example, suggested that non-
verbal communication defines or constrains the interaction, controls
communication flow, and provides redundant information that comple-
mhnts verbal communication. Ekman and Friesen (1969) identified
classes of nonverbal behaviors based on five functions-illustrating,
displaying affect, regulating, replacing, and adapting. Patterson (1983)
concluded that nonverbal communication serves relational functions
by allowing expression of intimacy and social control, and serves task
functions through facilitation of task goals. And Burgoon (1985)
identified six nonverbal communicationfunctions:symbolicrepresenta-
tion, expressive communication, structuring interaction, impression
formation/management, metacommunication, and social influence.
606 zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyx
zyx
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

Although functionalanalysis is useful for describing and categorizing

phenomena, there are some problems with a purely functional ap-
proach. First, communication behavior often serves more than one
function. This confounds a functional scheme because it is difficult to
tell which function is primary. Second, and more important, inferences
based on observation may be invalid. That is, the function derived from
trained and objective observation may be quite different from the
untrained individualencoder or decoder’s perceptions and understand-
ing. And, “the perceptions of actor and target are probably more
important in determining the course of an exchange than are the
objective evaluations’’(Patterson, 1983, p. 10).An alternative method,
then, is to uncover the functions through examination of an individual’s
motives.

Media Uses and

Gratifications Research
Over the years, the uses and gratifications perspective of mass
communication research has focused on reasons why people turn to
the media. The perspective has three major objectives: to explain how
media are used by individuals to satisfy their needs, to understand
motives for media use, and to identify the outcomes that follow from
needs, motives, and media use (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974).
The first stage of the uses andgratifications research agenda, similar
to the interpersonal communication research discussed earlier, was the

zyxwv
identificationof the general functions of media use such as surveillance,
correlation, entertainment, and socialization (Lasswell,1948).Research
then moved to investigating motiues for television viewing (e.g.,
Greenberg, 1974;McQuail, Blumler, & Brown, 1972;Rubin, 1979,1981)
and to developing typologies of motives for viewing specific program
genres (e.g., Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985;A. Rubin & R. Rubin, 1982).
Rubin’s (1981)research found that people view television to pass time
or out of habit, for companionship, for arousal or excitement, to view
specific programs, for information or to learn, to relax, to escape or
forget, for entertainment and enjoyment, and for social interaction.
Central to the uses and gratifications perspective is the assumption
that people’s communication choices are purposive, goal-directed
activities (Katz et al., 1974). Basic human needs produce motives that
then lead to behaviors to gratify those needs (Rosengren, 1974). Rubin
and Windahl(l986, p. 191)emphasized that “communication motiues
 zy
zyxwv
zy
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATION MOTIVES

are difficult to separate from needs since needs are manifested in

motives, Motives are the expectations generated for communication
607

behavior. A need to belong, for example, may produce a motive to use

communication channels to seek companionship.” Also central to the
perspective is the assumption that people are mindful, are aware of
their needs and motives, and are able to report them.
The uses and gratifications approach has been successful at
explaining media exposure levels (e.g., Greenberg, 1974), the media
selectionprocess (e.g., Palmgreen,Wenner, & Rayburn, 1981),attitudes
about television and its content (e.g., Rubin, 1981, 1983), and media
effects (e.g., Perse, 1986; Rubin & Perse, 1987; Rubin et al., 1985). So
too, examining the motives for interactional communication should
enhance understanding of interpersonal communication choices and
outcomes.

Interfacing Media and

Interpersonal Motives
Comparisons of the uses of various media and interpersonal
communication sources have shown that media and interpersonal
sources serve similar functions (Elliott & Quattlebaum, 1979; Katz,
Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973).They are both used by people “to connect
(or sometimes disconnect)themselves. . . with different kinds of others
(self, family, friends, nation, etc.)” (Katz et al., 1974, p. 23).
Other researchers investigated how media use complements inter-
personal communication. Lull (1980) found that the media were used
structurallyto regulate and punctuate the environment, and relationally
to facilitate communication, to affiliate with or avoid others, for social
learning, and to reinforce or change interpersonal roles. Chaffee (1986)
argued that people use the media to gain information to pass on to
others, for conversational topics, to appear well informed, to gain social
approval, to express opinions, to influence others, and to seek
information.
Using Q analysis, Wenner (1976)found three basic television viewer
types among elders that relate to interpersonal interaction. Type I
viewers watched television when they wanted to be alone or to keep
informed about current events; Type I1 viewers used television for
companionship and to compensate for the lack of social face-to-face
interaction; Type 111viewers used television as a conversationalvehicle.
Similarly, Barbato (1986)used Q methodology to discover types of
interpersonal communicators. In total, 32 participants (ranging in age
608 zyx
zyxw
zyxwvutsr
zyxw
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

from 18to 60years) were asked to sort 40 statements of why they might
talk with others. Three major interpersonal communication user types
emerged. Other-oriented users talked to others to show concern, to
share and give something to others, but not out of obligation.
Instrumental/self-help users communicated with others either to
confirm self, get advice from others, and to feel less lonely or because
they sought excitement. Expressive-emotionalusers used communica-
tion either to express and share or for entertainment.
Barbato (1986)argued that she found interpersonal motives reflecting
the self-confirmatory, inclusion, and emotion-expressive functions
identified in interpersonal communication research (Benniset al., 1968;
Schutz, 1966), and social utility, personal identity, and entertainment
functions identified in mass communication research (Katz et al., 1973;
McQuail et al., 1972;Rubin, 1981;A. Rubin & R. Rubin, 1982).Thus her
study demonstrated the importance of interfacing the personal and
mediated communicationperspectives and the need to examine further
motives for interpersonal communication.

Interpersonal Communication Motives

Inspection of the behavioral categories and communication motives
discussed above led to the identification of 18 possible interpersonal
communication motives. The first group of nine motives came from the
television-viewingmotives identified earlier (Rubin, 1981).We speculated
that people would use interpersonal communication for relaxation
when they have a need to unwind, rest, or feel less tense. They would
communicate for companionship when they have a social need to be
part of a group (Schutz, 1966)or to fill a void in their life. People would
sometimes communicate out of habit, an individualized rule to always
talk or to talk to certain people each day, or to pass the time of day
when there’s nothing better to do. Others would communicate for
entertainment, because it’s fun, enjoyable, and a good time. Often
people would communicate for social interaction, defined here as a
need to share information with others about oneself. Others would
communicate in order to receive information. Some just seek the
arousal that occurs in communication, or the thrill, excitement, and
stimulation it provides. Others seek escape and attempt to avoid
activities and worries by communicating with others.
The second group of nine came from other related sources.
Research on contextual age (R. Rubin & A. Rubin, 1982)has indicated
that people sometimes communicate in order to enhance self-learning,
 zyxwzy
zy
zyxwv
Rubin, Paw, Barbato / COMMUNICATION M O W

a method of getting information about the self to guide one’s own

behavior, and for convenience, just because it is easy to do and
609

someone happens to be there. At other times people communicate

because the socialnorms dictate it-implicit societal rules that indicate
such behavior is not only appropriatebut required. Altruism is a selfless
motive where individuals initiate communication to make others feel
better. From Schutz (1%) and others (e.g., Bochner et al., 1977;Millar
& Rogers, 1976; Burgoon & Hale, 1984)we learn that communication
occurs to offer affection to others and to control others so that one
does not lose one’s power. Maslow’s (1954) needs for self-esteem (the
need to feel good about oneself through feedback) and safety (the need
to feel safe as a reaction to physical or psychological dangers)
contributed two additional communication motives. Lastly, emotional
expression,or the need to talk, relieve frustrations,or let off steam, has
appeared in the literature as a possible communication motive (see,
e.g., Bennis et al., 1968;Bochner, 1984).

Convergent Validity
One goal of this research was to create and evaluate an Interpersonal
Communication Motives (ICM) scale. A second goal was to provide
initial evidence for the construct validity of the ICM scale. In particular,
we chose to focus on the convergent validity by examining a set of
demographic variables and two constructs that should be related to
interpersonalcommunicationmotives: the predisposition of communica-
tion apprehension,and the communicationoutcome of communication
satisfaction.
Demographics.Research on the origins of television-viewingpatterns
suggests that demographic variables influence motives and behaviors.
Gender, for example, has been linked to media use patterns: females
were found to be more likely to turn to television for companionship
reasons (Rubin, 1979,1981; A. Rubin & R. Rubin, 1982). Educational
level has been linked negatively to watching television for habit,
entertainment, pass time, and companionship. When older people are
part of larger households, they are less likely to watch television for
companionshipmotives, yet elders with high interpersonal interaction
report using television for conversational topics, entertainment, and
relaxation (A. Rubin & R. Rubin, 1982). Younger people watch
television to pass time, the middle-aged watch to pass time and seek
information, and elders watch to seek information (Jeffres, 1975).
Research has consistentlyconfirmed relationshipsamong age, watching
610 zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

news programs, and informationalmotives (Davis, Edwards, Bartel, &

Martin, 1976; A. Rubin & R. Rubin, 1982; Rubin, 1984).
These variables-age, gender, educational level, and household
size-also may relate to interpersonal communicationmotives. As with
television exposure, age and educational level might be connected to
escape motives for communication. And, household size would likely
be related to the use of communication for inclusion reasons. Thus one
research question was created to examinethese life context variablesin

zyx
relation to interpersonal communication use:
(Rl)Will the demographic variables of age, gender, education level, and
household size be related to interpersonal communication motives?
Communication apprehension. Research has demonstrated that
communicationapprehension (CA)affects the amount of interpersonal
interaction and interaction outcomes. High CAs generally avoid
communication situations and find talking to be not at all pleasurable
(Lederman, 1983).When they do communicate, they are perceived as
less competent, appropriate, and attractive (for an overview of the
research findings, see McCroskey, 1977).The strength of the findings
about CA suggested that it would be closely aligned to motives for
interpersonal communication. For example, a related concept, re-
ticence, has been found to affect the interpersonal needs of expressed
affection and expressed inclusion (Rosenfeld& Frandsen 1972;Schutz
1966). Persons who avoid communication have less of a need to
express affection and offer inclusion to others. Therefore, we asked a
second research question:
(R2)Will communication apprehensionbe related to interpersonalcommuni-
cation motives?
Communication satisfaction. Hecht (1978a, 1978c)conceptualized
communicationsatisfaction as the positive reinforcement provided by a
communisation event that fulfills positive expectations. Satisfaction,
Hecht argued, is important because it can validate the outcomes of
various communication studies; positive outcomes of conversations
should be satisfying to the interactants. Varying levels of satisfaction
should be related to need-fulfillment derived from communication.
Because individuals’ communication motives are based on their
expectations about the utility of those motives in fulfilling their needs,
we expected that communication motives would be associated with
global communication satisfaction.
 zy
zyxwv
zyx
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATION MOTIVES

Hecht (1978b, p. 359) warned against using global measures of

communication satisfaction because these measures tend to omit
611

partially related relationships, use too few items, and omit a time frame.
However, Wheeless, Wheeless, and Baus (1984)found that a general
communicationsatisfaction measure was possible in studyingphases of
intimate relationship development. We found it necessary to view
communication satisfaction as a global measure in this study. Re-
spondents were asked to report on multiple motives for interaction
rather than motives for one conversation; cuing respondents to one
particular conversation would not have allowed for equal comparison of

zyx
motives and satisfaction on a more global level. Thus in testing the
convergent validity of the interpersonal communication motive scale,
we asked:
(R3) What is the relationship between interpersonal communicationmotives
and global communicationsatisfaction?
Finally, a multivariate relationship was expected among socio-
demographics, communication apprehension, and communication
satisfaction.According to the uses and gratificationsperspective (Katz
et al., 1974), needs shaped by (a) sociological contexts and (b)
psychological predispositions lead to (c) motives to communicate.
Satisfaction, then, should result from the motives and previous
experiencesin communication.A test of this model involvesestimating
the ability to predict communication satisfaction from motives, and
psychological and sociological factors.
Because this research is based in the psychological perspective
(Fisher, 1978) and draws from uses and gratifications tenets, we
adopted the methodological assumptionsthat people are aware of their
needs when they form motives to communicate (Katzet al., 1974).Thus
self-report methodology was the most appropriate way to investigate
the conceptual filters of interest. Writers have shown that when people
are motivated,they are aware oftheir thoughts and feelings (Greenwald,
1982; Kellogg, 1982).

STUDY 1
Procedure
In Study 1,we solicited statements reflecting a comprehensive range
of interpersonal communication motives. Undergraduate students
enrolled in interpersonal communicationclasses at a large Midwestern
612 zyxw
zyx
zyx
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

zy
university were offeredextra credit for completinga 1-daydiary of their
communicationbehaviors,listing all communication events they initiated
(interpersonal and mediated), indicating where and when the event
occurred, to whom they spoke, what was discussed, which medium
was used, and explainingtheir reasons for entering into the communica-
tion. Of the 127 students enrolled, 82 (36 males and 46 females)
completed diaries during the first week of November 1984.
Five graduate students enrolled in a communication research class
in fall 1985 analyzed these diaries, transcribing each interpersonal
communication event and the reason for its initiation. A total of 840
events were identified. These graduate students were then trained to
classify each of the communication events into one of the 18categories
identified earlier. Each transcription was coded by two independent
coders; intercoder reliability, assessed by Scott’s (1955)pi, ranged from
.45 to .67. No diary item failed to fit into one of the 18 categories.
On the basis of the above data, 90 statements (5 statements to
represent each of the 18categories)were drawn either from the diaries
(onlythose receiving agreed-uponclassificationby two coders) or from
the previous research that identified television-viewingmotives (Rubin,
1985).The 90 statements were phrased as 5-point Likert-type items.’
To check the clarity and salience of the 90 items, the Interpersonal
Communication Motives (ICM) scale was administered to 32 under-
graduate students enrolled in two interpersonalcommunicationclasses
in October 1985. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to
which the 90 items represented reasons why they talk to other people.
After completing the scale, students participated in focus group
discussions (either all male, all female, or mixed gender) to determine
difficultieswith the scale or its items, and to identifyadditional motives.
The students expressed no difficultywith the clarity of the items, but
item analysis and opinions expressed in the focus groups led to slight
alterationsof the category structure. Safety and self-esteemcategories
were eliminated because they were not salient to the respondents and
because there was no variance in their responses. Affection and
altruism categorieswere seen as redundant so they were combined to
represent a more generalized “caring” communication motive that
included both altruism and affection items. In addition, for each
category, the least discriminating scale item was eliminated.
The initial ICM scale, then, consisted of 60 scale items, 4 statements
representing 15 functions of interpersonal communication: caring,
 zyxw
zyxw
zy
zyxw
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATION MOTlvEs 613

relaxation, companionship, habit, pass time, entertainment, social

interaction, arousal, information, escape, self-learning,convenience,
social norms, control, and emotional expression.2

STUDY 2

Procedure
Sample
The goal of the next stage of the research was to identifythose items
that would make up the final Interpersonal Communication Motives
scale. Because we hoped to generalize beyond the traditional college
student, a sample representing the general population was sought. To
acquire this varied sample, undergraduate and graduate students
enrolled in research methods courses at the same university during fall
1985 were trained in questionnaire administration and ethics. Each
student was given a packet of questionnairesand instructed to choose a
wide variety of people as respondents. Students were instructed to
attempt an equal split of males and females and to select respondents
with varied educational backgrounds in fivespecific age categories: 13
to 24,25 to 34,35 to 49,50 to 65, and over 65 years. The questionnaires
included the 60-itemICM scale, a request for demographic information

zyxwv
(age, gender, highest level of education completed, and number of
people in their household) and two additional instruments to test the
convergent validity of the scale.
The sample consisted of 504 respondents with ages ranging from 12
to 91 years (M = 40.26, SD = 16.98); 25.2% were between 12 and 24,
17.4% were 25 to 34 years, 24% were 35 to 49,26.2% were 50 to 65, and
7.2% were over 65. Males accounted for 44.8% of the respondents. On
the average, respondents had completed some college (M=3.80 where
3 represented high school graduation and 4 represented some college),
and shared their living quarters with an averageof 3.29 (SD= 2.49) other
people. The sample consisted of residents of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.
Instrumentation
In an attempt to establish the construct validity of the ICM scale and
to test our model relating motives to communication predispositions
and outcomes, the respondents completed measures of communication
614 zyxw
zyx
zyxwvutsrq
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

apprehension and global communication satisfaction. These instru-

ments were placed at the end of the questionnaire, just prior to the
demographic questions.
Communication apprehension. Communication apprehension was
measured by the PRCA-24B(McCroskey, 1986).This latest revision of
the PRCA was designed to provide both trait and state measures of the
construct. Specifically, it was designed to assess levels of CA in
communication contexts (dyads, small groups, meetings, and public
settings)and relationships (friends, acquaintances, and strangers).3
Respondents expressed their agreement (1= strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree) with the 24 statements. Polarity of negatively worded
items was reversed so that higher scores reflected higher levels of CA.
The overall coefficient alpha for this scale was .90(M 61.20, SD =
13.68).Because few differencesbetween CA contexts and relationships
existed in relationship to the interpersonal motives, a total CA score
was used in the results reported here.
Global communication satisfaction. Communication satisfaction
was operationalized by adapting Hecht’s (19784 communication
satisfactionscale. The 19-itemscale was reworded to assess satisfaction
with conversation in general. This scale had been administered earlier
to 1%undergraduate students enrolled in interpersonal communication
courses at the same university in the spring of 1985. The responses to
these items were subjected to principal components analysis with
oblique rotation. Five factors, each with eigenvalues of 1.0 or higher,
accounted for 46.2%of the variance. Three items that did not load on
any one factor (utilizingthe .50/.30 rule) were removed from the scale.
The new 16-itemglobal communicationsatisfaction scale was internally
consistent (Cronbach’s alpha .87).
Respondents expressed their agreement (5 strongly agree, 1 =
strongly disagree) with the 16 statements. Negatively worded items
were reverse coded so that higher scores reflected greater satisfaction.
The 16 items were subjected to principal components analysis with
varimax rotation (SPS, 1986).The solution yielded 3 factors accounting
for 47.8% of the total variance. However, each of the factors reflected
nuances of the language used in the statement rather than discrete
factors of global satisfaction.4 So, as Hecht (1978a) had suggested,
scores on the 16items were summed to create a measure of satisfaction
with conversations. These scores ranged from 33.00 to 78.00 (M =
59.58, SD = 7.68, alpha .84).
Results
Factor Structure
zyxwzy
zy
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATION MOTIVES 615

The 59 interpersonal communication motives were subjected to

principal componentsanalysiswith varimax rotation (SPSS,1986).The
criteria for a factor to be retained were an eigenvalue greater than 1.0
and two primary factor loadings of at least .55 with no secondary
loadings over .40.
The solution identified 11 factors that accounted for 59.5% of the
total variance. Factors 7 through 11 were excluded from further
analyses because (a) they failed the Scree test and (b) three of these
factors had only one or no items loading cleanly on the factor, even
using fairly liberal rules for factor retention (Poole & McPhee, 1985).
The remaining 6 factors accounted for 49.5%of the total variance and
were made up of 28 items.
To assess the stability of the factor structure, the 28 items were
subjected to a second principal components analysis with varimax
rotation. The solution yielded 6 factors accountingfor 62.8%of the total
variance. Using the same criteria reported earlier, all 6 factors were
retained. Each factor was defined by the same items as those found in
the first analysis.
Factor 1, pleasure (eigenvalue = 8.57), accounted for 16.2%of the
total variance. It was defined by all four arousal items and all four
entertainment items. This factor reflected communicating because it
was fun,stimulating, and entertaining.
Factor 2, affection (eigenvalue = 2.60), accounted for 11.5%of the
total variance. It was marked by loadings of all four caring items and one
social ritual item (“to thank them”). This factor depicted a use of

zyxwv
communication to express caring and appreciation for others.
Factor 3, inclusion (eigenvalue 2.34), accounted for 10.3%of the
total variance. It included three companionship items and one expres-
sive item (“need to talk about my problems sometimes”). This factor
reflected a use of interpersonal communication to be with and share
feelings with others and to overcome loneliness.
Factor 4, escape (eigenvalue 1.89),accounted for 8.8%of the total
variance. This factor was defined by three escape items and one pass
time item (“have nothing better to do”). It reflected an avoidance of
other activities and the use of communication to fill time.
Factor 5, relaxation (eigenvalue = Lll), accounted for 8.5% of the
616 zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

TABLE 1
Interpersonal Communication Motives: Primary Factor Loadings

Interpersonal Motive Items Interpersonal Motive Factors

“ I talk t o people. . .” 1 2 3 4 5 6

Factor 1 : Pleasure

zyxwvutsr
Because it%fun (3.41,1.08) .76 .14 .16 .07 .22 .01
Because it’s exciting (2.96,1.08) .75 .08 .21 .14 .05 -.OO
To have a good time (3.25,1.06) .73 .12 .11 .16 .07 .05
Because it’s thrilling (2.60,1.13) .72 -.01 .13 .17 .05 .05
Because it’s stimulating (3.35,1.06) .69 .19 .10 .03 .10 .08
Because it’s entertaining (3.55,1 .OO) .67 .04 -.01 .19 .23 .06
Because I enjoy it (3.94,0.97) .62 .25 .12 -.07 .26 -.09
Because it peps me up (3.20,1.07) .62 .13 .30 .18 .29 -.04
Factor 2: Affection
T o help others (3.94,0.93) .ll .83 .06 .04 .ll .08
To let others know I care about
their feelings (3.88,0.92) .16 .74 .18 -.02 .09 -.14
To thank them (3.82,0.97) .01 .73 .03 .12 .08 .19
To show others encouragement
(3.71,0.90) .18 .72 .14 -.01 .ll .06
Because I’m concerned about
them (3.88,0.85) .14 .71 .18 -.05 -.OO -.03
Factor 3: Inclusion
Because I need someone t o talk t o
or be with (3.32,1.20) .24 .ll .76 .13 .09 .03
Because I just need t o talk about
my problemssometimes (3.30,1.18) .ll .18 .73 .18 .16 .07
Because it makes me feel less lonely
(3.03,1.21) .22 .13 .70 .27 .19 .01
Because it’s reassuring t o know someone
is there (3.36,1.08) .23 .34 .68 .07 .22 .04
Factor 4: Escape
To p u t off doing something I should
be doing (2.26,1.16) .23 .02 .lo .81 -.01 .ll
To get away from what I’m doing
(2.61,1.16) .19 .ll .22 .73 .23 .OO
Because I have nothing better t o do
(1.93,1 .OO) .10 -.08 .07 .64 .03 .26
To get away from pressures and
responsibilities (2.56,1.1 3) .12 .04 .34 .61 .28 .04
 zyx
zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxw
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATIONMOTIVES

TABLE 1 Continued
617

zyxwvuts
Interpersonal Motive Items
“I talk t o people

Factor 5: Relaxation
.. . ”

Because it relaxes me (3.19, 0.99)

Because it allows me t o unwind
(3.21, 1.05)
1

.24

.23
Interpersonal Motive Factors
2

.12

.09
3

.OS

.27
4

.06

.1S
5

.79

.74 -.02
6

.02

Because it’s a pleasant rest (3.04, 1.06) .34 .1S .26 .10 .60 -.11
Because it makes me feel less tense
(2.91, 1.11) .22 .12 .39 .3s 5s -.01

Factor 6: Control
Because I want someone t o do
something for me (2.47,1.07)
T o tell others what t o do (2.76, 1.1 2)
To get something I don’t have
(2.22, 1.08)
.04
-.02 zyxw
.08 -.02
.08 .06
.09 -.12

.16
.08 -.OS
.08

.15
.OO

-.01

NOTE 1: The parenthetical numbers are each item’s mean and standard deviation.
.84
.78

.76

The varimax-rotated factor solution explained 62.8% o f the total variance.

NOTE 2: The last item o f the 4th and 5th factors had high secondary loadings. A
26-item scale may be preferable, or, alternatively, an 18-item scale consisting o f the
first three items in each factor. Coefficient alphas for the 6 factors of three items
each ranged from .71 for escape to .80 for pleasure.

total variance. It was made up of four relaxation items and depicted a

use of interpersonal communication to rest, relax, and unwind.
Factor 6, control (eigenvalue 1.06), accounted for 7.4% of the total
variance. It included three control items that marked instrumental
communication to gain compliance.
Table 1presents the means, standard deviations,and primary factor
loadings of the 28 items loading in the 6-factorsolution.
Mean scores on each of the 6 factors were used in subsequent
analyses.There were several significant correlationsamong the factors.
Pleasure was significantlycorrelated with all the other factors, but most
highly related to inclusion and relaxation. Affection was most closely
related to inclusion. Inclusion was highly correlated with relaxation,and
the escape factor was highly correlated with relaxation. Control and
relaxation were virtually unrelated. The complete correlationmatrix for
the constructed factors is presented in Table 2.
Next, the internal consistency of each factor was assessed. Cron-
bach’s alphas ranged from .75 to .89. The alphas are also presented in
Table 2.
 TABLE 2 zyxwvutsr
zyxw
Pearson Correlations: Interpersonal Motives, Demographics,
Communication Apprehension, and Communication Satisfaction

Motives
Pleasure
Affection
Inclusion
Escape
Relaxation
Control
Pleasure

1.oo
.35***
.51***
.41***
.59***
.08*
zyxwvutsr
Affection

zyxwvutsrq
1 .oo
.42***
.15***
.34***
.11**
Inclusion

1.oo
.49***
.59***
.1 o*
Escape

1 .oo
.49***
.25***
Relaxation

1.oo
.02
Control

1.oo
M

3.28
3.85
3.25
2.34
3.09
2.48
SD

0.80
0.71
0.95
0.86
0.85
0.89
alpha

.89
.85
.84
.77
.81
.75
Demographics
Age -.26** * .14** -.14** -.26*** -.05 -.09* 40.26 16.98
Gender .17*** .30*** .29*** .04 .19*** -.21*** 1.55 0.50
Education .01 -.06 -.19*** -.05 -.lo* .la*** 3.80 1.18
House Size -.02 -.04 -.09* -.05 -.05 -.01 3.29 2.49
Communication

zyxwvutsrqpon
Apprehension -.16*** -.12** .11** .04 -.06 -.08* 61.20 13.68 .90
Communication
Satisfaction .36*** .31*** .11** .oo .25*** .01 59.58 7.68 .84
~~.~ ~

NOTE: Because o f missing data, N = 474 for correlations involving interpersonal motive factors; for means and correlations not involving inter-
personal motive factors, N ranges from 468 to 504. For Gender, Male = 1, Female = 2.
* p < .05; **p < .01; * * * p < .001 (two-tailed).
 zyxw
zyxwvuzy
zy
zyxwv
Rubin, Pew, Barbato / COMMUNICATION MOTIVES

Convergent Validify
To investigate the demographic correlates of the interpersonal
619

communicationmotives, Pearson correlationswere computed between

the 6 motives identified by the factor analysis and the demographic
characteristics of age, gender, educational level, and household size.
These correlations are reported in Table 2.
In general, the correlations show that age was related negatively to
communicatingfor pleasure and escape. Gender was related positively
to the affectionand inclusion motives. Education was related positively
to control and negatively to the inclusion motive. Household size was
virtually unrelated to these motives.
To investigatethe relationshipbetween communicationapprehension
and interpersonal communication motives, Pearson correlations were
computed between the total CA score and the 6 interpersonal
communicationmotives (seeTable 2). These correlationsrevealed that
communication apprehension was related negatively to pleasure,
affection,and controland was related positivelyto using communication
for inclusion.
Because Hecht (1978a, 1978c) argued that satisfaction was an
appropriate communicationoutcome, Pearson correlations were corn-
puted between communication satisfactionand interpersonalcommuni-
cation motives (see Table 2). Satisfaction was related positively to
pleasure, affection, inclusion, and relaxation motives. In general,
satisfaction was unrelated to escape and control communication
motives.
Hierarchical multiple regressions were performed to test the multi-
variate model of the investigation: the contribution of CA and
interpersonal communication motives to global satisfactionwith conver-
sations. The variables were entered in blocks reflecting the uses and
gratificationsmodel's tenets that predispositions influence communica-
tion motives. To control for the possible influence of demographic
variables, age, gender, education, and household size were entered into

zy
the equation first to see if CA and interpersonal motives would add
substantially to an explanation of satisfactionbeyond the demographics.
The demographic variables entered on the first step explained 3.2%
of the variance (F [4,447] = 3.68, p < .01).Gender was a significant
predictor at this stage (beta = .14, F 8.59, p < .01). Communication
apprehension, entered next, added 24.9% to the total variance (F [5,
4461 34.80,~< .001, beta = -.51). The six motives, entered last, added
significantlyto the equation by increasingthe total variance by 10.6%(F
620 zyxw
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

zyxw
[ll,4401 = 25.20, p < .001). The final equation accounted for 38.65%of
the variance. The most substantial contributors were pleasure (beta =
.29, F = 18.06, p < .001), affection (beta = .19, F = 16.32, p < .001),
relaxation (beta = .13, F 5.39, p < .001), and escape (beta = -.16, F =
11.09, p < .001).

DISCUSSION
The goal of this investigation was to develop and test an instrument
to measure interpersonal communication motives. The present study
not only yielded reliable 28-and 18-itemscales, but provided information
about how those uses of communication are related to socio
demographic characteristics,predispositions, and communication out-
comes. It also provided confirmatory support for past research
analyzing interpersonal behavior.
Despite the criticisms of FIRO theory (Armstrong& Roback, 1977;
Frandsen & Rosenfeld, 1973; Hinrichsen, Gryll, Bradley, & Katahn,
1975), this study confirms Schutz’s (1966) belief that people use
interpersonal communication to express affection, to seek inclusion,
and to express control. These motives reflect an orientation toward
others and a desire to form and maintain social bonds. In addition,
people use communication for pleasure (entertainment and arousal),
for relaxation, and to escape other activities. Similar typologies have
been developed in uses and gratifications research (e.g., Rubin, 1981,
1983) and have been consistently employed in studies of various
television genres (e.g., Palmgreen, Wenner, & Rayburn, 1980; Perse,
1986; Rubin, 1985; Rubin et al., 1985).
Results indicated that scores on the ICM Control factor were
relatively low in comparison with those of the other motives. Previous
research suggested that the FIRO scale was biased against the control
dimension (Frandsen & Rosenfeld, 1973) and that social desirability
might influence respondents’ control scores in that the wording of some
of the FIRO scale items reveals the scale’s expectations (Hinrichsen et
al., 1975). Also,Wiedemann, Waxenberg, and Mone (1979)found the
control dimension to be unrelated to the areas of inclusion and
affection, results somewhat supported in this investigation.
But, it may be that communicating with others to control is not as
salient as motives to show affection, feel part of a social circle, or to use
communication for pleasure, relaxation, or escape. This suggests that
perspectives that emphasize the functional nature of communication
(e.g., Bochner, 1984)are ignoring more salient motives of communica-
 zy
zyxw
zyxwvu
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATION M O M

tion: inclusion, affection, escape, relaxation, and pleasure. Moreover,

control was virtually unrelated to communicationsatisfactionsuggesting
621

that little satisfaction is gained from interpersonal control.

The identification of pleasure, escape, and relaxation motives of
interpersonal communication points out the need for research into
communication as entertainmentand diversion. Traditionally,entertain-
ment has been a neglected field of communication study. Most
entertainment research grew out of beliefs that people seek diversion to
escape reality, and hence entertainment reflected societal alienation
(see Mendelsohn, 1966). This dysfunctional view of entertainment is
being set aside in mass communication research (see, e.g., Tannen-
baum, 1980). Pleasure, escape, and relaxation’s contribution to com-
munication satisfaction in this study reinforces the positive aspects of
these interpersonal communication motives. Because entertainment
and relaxation motives of both mass and interpersonal communication
have been identified, it is now possible to answer research questions
posed by Rubin and Rubin (1985): (a) are mediated or interpersonal
channels better suited for those motives and (b) how do mediated and
interpersonal channels work together to provide pleasure and
relaxation?
Consistent with earlier research utilizing the FIR0 scales (Schutz,
1966), women in this study were less likely to use communication for
control (Liu, 1975), but more likely to talk to others for pleasure, to
express affection, to seek inclusion, and to relax. Future research
should investigate how life situation influences these traditional motives.
Burke and Weir (1976), for example, found that working married
women wanted less inclusion, expressed less affection, and expressed
more control than nonworking married women.
In this study, we also found that interpersonal communication
motives were related to lifespan position. Younger people used
communication more for pleasure, inclusion, and escape, while older
persons were more concerned with giving affection. The relationship
between the interpersonalmotives and sociodemographicsconfirm the
results of a study by Barbato (1985) who examined elders’ use of
interpersonal communication; she found that most respondents had a
high need for expressing their ideas or, in Schutz’s (1966)terminology,
a high need for inclusion.
These sociodemographic variables may influence communication
motives because they impact on the availability of communication
alternatives (Rosengren & Windahl, 1972), create a desire for social
622 zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

identification (Blumler, 1985), provide additional opportunities to

satisfy interpersonal needs (Burke & Weir, 1976), or simply limit
available leisure time and energy to pursue diversion (Melnik, 1979).
Communication predispositionsalso influence reasons for talking to
others. Communication apprehension research would suggest that
higher levels of CA would be related negatively to pleasurable
communication motives. In this study, communication apprehensives
were less likely to communicate for pleasure, for control, and to give
affection. Despite the fact that Rosenfeld and Frandsen (1972)found
that reticent students expressed lower needs for inclusion and affection
than did nonreticent students, our findings show that higher appre-
hensives were more likely to communicate to seek inclusion (this was
consistent across all contexts and relationship levels). The findings
suggest that persons high in apprehension still need to be included and
will talk to othersfor this reason despite their apprehension. Communica-
tion is not a source of pleasure or relaxation, but a plea for acceptance.
Interpersonalcommunicationmotives also were related to communi-

zyxw
cation satisfaction. Talking to others for pleasure, relaxation, to
express affection, and to be included were related to higher levels of
communication satisfaction. These findings are similar to media uses
and gratificationsresearch that found that using television for entertain-
ment (pleasure) and relaxation reasons was associated with higher
levels of life satisfaction (A. Rubin & R. Rubin, 1982; Rubin, 1985; R.
Rubin & A. Rubin, 1982). Although Miller and Sunnafrank (1982)
suggest that successful control is a satisfying interpersonal outcome,
results presented here indicate that seeking personal rewards through
interpersonal complianceis not particularly satisfying. Communicating
for control was not related to communication satisfaction.This may be
because of relationship costs associated with gaining compliance
(Sillars, 1980).
Although the relationship between communication apprehension
and satisfactionwas not a focus of our investigation,the findings of the
regression analyses merit comment. Global communicationsatisfaction
was dependent, to some extent, on low communicationapprehension.
Similar results have linked CA to lower levels of job satisfaction
(Falcione, McCroskey, & Daly, 1977). McCroskey (1984) suggested
that communication apprehension is formed and maintained through
cognitive appraisalsof the outcomes (goalachievement)of communica-
tion episodes. When goals are not achieved, negative expectations for
future communication are formed, leading to higher levels of apprehen-
 Rubin, Perse, Barbato / zyx
zyxw
COMMUNICATION MOTIVES

sion. Hecht (1978a, 1978c), however, held that satisfaction is as

appropriate a communication outcome as goal achievement. It may be
623

that the learned helplessness and negative reinforcement associated

with higher apprehension may be linked to cognitive appraisals of
satisfaction gained from communicating. When satisfaction is low,
apprehension may be reinforced.
Lastly, through this examination of interpersonal communication
motives, research results focusing on dimensions of interpersonal
behavior have been cross validated. For instance, Burgoon and Hale’s

zy
(1984)dominance and intimacy categories, Triandis’s (1977)dimension
of association, superordination, and intimacy, Millar and Rogers’s
(1976) control and intimacy dimensions, the Bochner et al. (1977)
dimensions of control, nurturance, and sociability, and Mehrabian and
Ksionzky’s (1972) affiliation dimension are much like the motive
categories of control, inclusion, and affection identified in this study. As
was evident in past research, communication motives are linked to
communicate behaviors.

NOTES
1. All 90 items were phrased in terms to express positive quantities of the motive
being measured. There were two reasons for this. First, this is the common methodology
of uses and gratifications research that has been shown to be reliable and valid. Second,
although attitude scale construction texts recommend that a portion of scale items be

zyxwvu
negatively worded to guard against acquiescence, negatively worded motiveitems usually
are more closely related to each other in factor analyses and reflect avoidances, rather
than motivations (see, e.g., McLeod & Becker, 1981).Because we were interested in the
interrelationships of motive statements, we kept wording consistent so statistical tests
would reflect only differences in content, rather than wording.
2. One of the 60 items on the final form of the questionnaire was inadvertently
repeated (the pass time item of “have nothing better to do”). The second mention of this
item was eliminated from further data analysis to avoid jeopardizing statistical test
assumptions. All results, then, are based on the 59 items that remained.
3. The full correlation matrix is available from the first author.
4. An “other people” factor contained 4 items (“Other people let me know that I
communicate effectively,” “Other people express a lot of interest in what I have to say,”
“Other people genuinely want to get to know me,” “My conversations flow smoothly”),a
“conversation” factor contained 3 items (“In conversations, we each get to say what we
want to,” “In conversations, I feel that we can laugh easily together,” “During
conversations with others, I am able to present myself as I want others to view me”),and a
“negative” factor contained 3 items (“I have better things to do than converse with
others,” “1 do NOT enjoy conversations,” “Nothing is ever accomplished in conversa-
tions”). The remaining items were: “I am very dissatisfied with my conversations,” “We
usually talk about something I am NOT interested in,” “I would like to continue having
 zyxw
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
624 HUMAN COMMUMCATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

conversations like the ones I have now,” “I feel like I can talk about anything with other
people,” “Other people show me they understand what I say,” and “I am very satisfied
with my conversations.” The three factors, the laitem scale, and the 16-item scale

zyxw
essentially produced the same results, so the 16-item scale was used in all data analyses.

REFERENCES

zy
Argyle, M. (1972).Non-verbalcommunicationin human social interaction. In R. A. Hinde
(Ed.), Non-verbal communication (pp. 243-269).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Armstrong, S., & Roback, H. (1977).An empirical test of Schutz’ three dimensional
theory of group process in adolescent dyads. Small Group Behauior, 8,443-456.
Barbato, C. A. (1985,November). Elder’s uses of interpersonal communication. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver.
Barbato, C. A. (1986,November). Uses of interpersonal communication. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
Bennis, W. G., Schein, E. R., Steele, F. A., & Berlew, D. E. (1968).Towards better
interpersonal relationships.In W. G. Bennis,E. R. Schein, F. A. Steele, & D. E. Berlew
(Eds.), Interpersonal dynamics: Essays and readings on human interaction (pp.
647-674).Homewood, IL Dorsey.
Blumler,J. G. (1985).The social character of media gratifications.In K. E. Rosengren, L.
A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications research: Current perspec-
tiues (pp. 41-59).Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
Bochner, A. P. (1984).The functionsof human communicationin interpersonal bonding.
In C. C. Arnold & J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetoricaland communication
theoy (pp. 544-621).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bochner, A. P., Kaminski,E. P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1977).The conceptual domain of
interpersonal communicationbehavior: A factor-analyticstudy. Human Communica-
tion Research, 3,291-302.
Burgoon, J. K. (1985).The relationshipof verbal and nonverbalcodes. In B. Dervin& M.
J. Voigt (Eds.),Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 6,pp. 263-298).Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Burgoon,J. K., &Hale, J. L. (1984).The fundamentaltopoiof relational communication.
Communication Monographs, 51,193-214.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987).Validation and measurement of the fundamental

zyxwvut
themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54,19-41.
Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1976).Some personality differences between members of
one-career and two-career families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38,453-459.

zyxw
Chaffee, S. H. (1986).Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive,convergent,
or complementary?In G. Gumpert & R. Cathcart (Eds.),Inter/media: Interpersonal
communication in a media world (3rd ed., pp. 62-80).New York: Oxford University
Press.
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979).Topoiand rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal
ofspeech, 65,187-206.
Dance, F.E.X., & Larson, C. E. (1976).The function of human communication: A
theoretical approach. New York Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Davis, R. H., Edwards, A. E., Bartel, D. J., & Martin, D. (1976).Assessing television
viewing behavior of older adults. Journal of Broadcasting, 20,69-75.
 zyxw
zy
Rubin, Perse, Barbato / COMMUNICATION MOTIVES 625

zyxw
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1%9). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories,
origins, usage and codings. Semiotica, 1,49-98.
Elliott, W. R., & Quattlebaum, C. P. (1979).Similaritiesin patterns of media use: A cluster
analysis of media gratifications. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 43,
61-72.
Falcione, R. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Daly, J. A. (1977).Job satisfaction as a function of
employees’ communication apprehension, self-esteem, and perceptions of their
immediate supervisors. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp.
363-375).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Fisher, B. A. (1978).Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan.
Frandsen, K. D., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (1973).Fundamental interpersonal relations
orientations in dyads: Empirical analysis of Schutz’s FIRO-B as an index of
compatibility. Speech Monographs, 40,113-122.
Greenberg, B. S. (1974).Gratifications of television viewing and their correlates for
British children. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses ofmass communications:
Current perspectiues on gratifications research (pp. 71-92).Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
Greenwald, A. G. (1982). Ego task analysis: An integration of research on ego-
involvementand self-awareness.In A. H. Hastorf& A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitiuesocial
psychology (pp. 109-147).New York: ElsevierlNorthHolland.
Harrison, R. P. (1973).Nonverbal communication.In I. de S. Pool& W. Schramm (Eds.),
Handbook of communication (pp. 93-115).Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hecht, M. L. (1978a).The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal
communicationsatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4,253-264.

zy
Hecht, M. L.(1978b).Measures of communicationsatisfaction.Human Communication
Research, 4,350-368.
Hecht, M. L. (19784.Toward a conceptualization of communication satisfaction.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64.47-62.
Hinrichsen, J. J., Gryll, S. L., Bradley, L. A., & Katahn, M. (1975).Effects of impression
management efforts on FIRO-B profiles. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43,269.
Jeffres, L. W. (1975).Functions of media behaviors. Communication Research, 2,
137-160.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M.(1974).Utilization of mass communicationby
the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications:
Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973).On the use of the mass media for important
things. American SociologicalReview, 38,164-181.
Kellogg, R. T. (1982).When can we introspect accurately about mental processes?
Memory and Cognition, 10,141-144.
Knapp, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (1985).Handbookof interpersonalcommunication.Beverly
Hills,C A Sage.
Lasswell, H. D. (1948).The structure and function of communicationsin society. In L.
Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37-51).New York: Harper.
Leary, T. (1957).lnterpersonal diagnosis ofpersonolity. New York Ronald.
Lederman, L. C. (1983).High communicationapprehensives talk about communication
apprehension and its effects on their behavior. Communication Quarterly, 31,
233-237.
626 zyxw
zyxwvut
zyxwvut
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

Liu, A. Y.(1975).Interpersonal relationships within an integrated setting. Psychological

Reports, 36, 138.
Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1965).Expansion of the interpersonalbehavior circle. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 2,823-830.
Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6,

zyxwvu
197-209.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation andpersonality. New York Harper.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent
theory and research. Human CommunicationResearch, 4,78-96.
McCroskey,J. C. (1984).The communicationapprehension perspective. In J. A. Daly &
J. C. McCroskey (Eds.),Auoidingcommunication:Shyness, reticence, and communi-
cation apprehension (pp. 13-38).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C. (1986). An introduction to rhetorical communication (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McLeod, J. M., & Becker, L. B. (1981).The uses and gratifications approach. In D. D.
Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 67-99).

zyxwvu
Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience: A revised
perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociologyofmass communications (pp. 135-165).
Middlesex, England: Penguin.
Mehrabian, A., & Ksionzky, S. (1972). Some determiners of social interaction.
Sociometry, 35,588-609.
Melnik, S. R. (1979).The “uses and gratifications”approach in the study of “entertain-
ment” and leisure use. In H. Fischer & s.R. Melnik (Eds.), Entertainment: A cross
cultural examination (pp. 144-152).New York Hastings House.
Mendelsohn, H. (19%). Mass entertainment. New Haven, CT:College and University
Press.
Millar, F. E., & Rogers,E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication.
In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87-104).
Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
Miller, G. R., & Sunnafrank, M. J. (1982). All is for one but one is not for all: A con-
ceptual perspective of interpersonal communication.In F.E.X. Dance (Ed.),Human
communication theory: Comparative essays (pp. 220-242). New York: Harper &
Row.
Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. (1980). Relations between gratifications
sought and obtained: A study of television news. Communication Research, 7,
161-192.

zyxwv
Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn, J. D. (1981). Gratifications discrepancies and
news program choice. Communication Research, 8,451-478.
Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Perse, E. M. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and cultivation.
Journal ofBroadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 175-193.
Poole, M. S., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Methodology in interpersonal communication
research. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
communication (pp. 100-170).Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
Rosenfeld, L. B., & Frandsen, K. D. (1972). The “other” speech student: An empirical
analysis of some interpersonal relations orientations of the reticent student. Speech
Teacher, 21,296-302.
 zyxw
zy Rubin, Perse, f3arbato / COMMUNICATION MOTIVES 627

zyxwv
Rosengren, K. E. (1974).Uses and gratifications:A paradigm outlined. In J. G. Blumler &
E. Katz (Eds.),Uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications

zyxwvut
research (pp. 269-286).Beverly Hills, C A Sage.
Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption as a functional
alternative. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 166-194).
Middlesex, England Penguin.
Rubin,A. M. (1979).Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication
Research, 5, 109-120.
Rubin, A. M. (1981).An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication
Research, 8,141-165.
Rubin, A. M. (1983).Television uses and gratifications: The interaction of viewing
patterns and motivations.Journal of Broadcasting, 27,3741.
Rubin, A. M. (1984).Ritualized and instrumentaltelevision viewing. Journalof Communica-
tion, 34(3),67-77.
Rubin, A. M. (1985).Uses of daytime television soap operas by college students. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29,241-258.
Rubin, A. M., & Perse, E. M. (1987).Audience activity and soap opera involvement: A
uses and effects investigation.Human Communication Research, 14,246-268.
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985).Loneliness,parasocial interaction, and
local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12,155-180.
Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1982).Contextual age and television use. Human
Communication Research, 8,228-244.
Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985).Interface of personal and mediated communication:
A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2,3653.
Rubin, A. M., & Windahl, S. (1986). The uses and dependency model of mass
communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,3,184-199.
Rubin, R. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1982).Contextual age and television use: Reexamining a
life-positionindicator.In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communicationyearbook 6 (pp. 583-604).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Schutz, W. C. (1966).73e interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, C A Science and
Behavior Books.

zyxwvuts
Scott, W. A. (1955).Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 19,321-325.
Sillars, A. L. (1980).The stranger and spouse as target persons for compliance-gaining
strategies: A subjective expected utility model. Human CommunicationResearch, 6,
265-279.
SPSS. (1986).SPSSX user's guide (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tannenbaum, P. H. (1980).The entertainment functions of television. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Triandis, H. C. (1977).Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, C A Brooks/Cole.
Triandis, H. C. (1980).Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In M. M. Page
(Ed.), Nebroska symposium on motivation 1979 (pp. 195-259).Lincoln, NE Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V., & Nassiakou, M. (1968).Three studies of subjective
culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 8,
1-42.
Wenner, L. A. (1976).Functional analysis of TV viewing for older adults. Journal of
Broadcasting, 20,7748.
628 zyxwv
zyxw
zyxwvut
zyxwvu
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Summer 1988

Wheeless,L. R., Wheeless,V. E., &Baus, R. (1984).Sexualcommunication,communica-

tion satisfaction,and solidarityin the developmental stages of intimate relationships.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48,217-230.
Wiedemann, C., Waxenberg, S. E., & Mone, L. C. (1979).Factor analysisof FIRO-Band
FIRO-F. Small Group Behavior, 10,49-61.
Wish, M., D’Andrade, R., & Goodnow,J. (1980).Dimensionsof interpersonalcommunica-
tion: Correspondences between structures for speech acts and bipolar scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,848-860.