161

Profile 2

Active ‐ Empathic Listening Scale (AELS)

(Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006; also Bodie, 2011)
Profiled by: Shaughan A. Keaton, PhD
Young Harris College

­Construct
The Active‐Empathic Listening Scale (AELS) assesses three dimensions of listening: sensing,
processing, and responding (Bodie, 2011; Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006).

­Instrument Type
Self‐Report; Other‐Report; Behavioral Assessment

­Description
The Active‐Empathic Listening Scale (AELS) is an 11‐item, three‐factor scale measuring
active‐empathic listening across three dimensions: sensing (n = 4), processing (n = 3),
and responding (n = 4) (Bodie, 2011; Drollinger et al., 2006). Sensing describes a listener’s
ability to understand relational aspects of speech. Processing is the cognitive aspect of
listening, and involves attending to, comprehending, receiving, and interpreting mes-
sages. Responding measures the behavioral output of listening, including verbal and non-
verbal feedback.

­Administration
The AELS can be administered via paper or online. All versions of the scale utilize 7‐point
scaling (1 = never or almost never true, 7 = always or almost always true). For the self‐
report version, participants indicate the extent to which each of 11 statements generally

The Sourcebook of Listening Research: Methodology and Measures, First Edition.

Edited by Debra L. Worthington and Graham D. Bodie.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
162 Shaughan A. Keaton

applies to them, applies in a particular listening situation, or applied after experiencing a

particular listening situation. The other‐report version asks respondents to assess the
statements with respect to a known other. The scale can also be modified to measure
perceptions of AEL within a particular conversation. To do so, the prompt can read “My
conversational partner” in the place of “I,” making sure that the items are modified for
grammar (e.g., change “ask” to “asked” for item 10). Finally, the scale can be used by
trained or untrained raters asked to watch videotaped or live conversations. The survey
takes fewer than 5 minutes to complete for any version. The wording of the instructions
can be changed to cover a wide range of specific contexts (e.g., “think of a salesperson,”
“think of your physician,” or “think of a family member”).

­Scoring
The items within subscales are averaged allowing four scores per participant: sensing,
processing, responding, and total AEL.

­Development
AEL was originally defined as a form of listening employed by salespeople, where
c­ustomary active listening is merged with empathy to realize a “higher form of listening”
(Comer & Drollinger, 1999; Drollinger et al., 2006, p. 161). The scale was designed to
assess effective versus ineffective listening from the points of view of customers. It drew
from previous scales developed to measure empathy (Davis, 1980, 1983) and active
­listening (Ramsey & Sohi, 1997). The Drollinger et al. (2006) version was called the
active‐empathetic listening scale.
Items for the original version of the scale were generated from previous practitioner
s­tudies as well as from previous listening and empathy measures. Key informants with
10 years of sales experience were interviewed to provide insight into the role of listening in
sales. Trained coders were then asked to sort the items into the three categories of sensing,
processing, and responding. Items that did not clearly fit into a category were removed.
Four studies were conducted to build a validity portfolio for the scale, each time resulting in
item removal. In the last study, an exploratory factor analysis revealed the final 11 items.
Bodie (2011) refined and adapted this 11‐item scale to a more general social context.
The revised scale includes both cognitive and behavioral items; active listening involves
not only processing information conveyed by one’s conversational partner but also
responding to those messages verbally and nonverbally. The scale has since been adapted
to measure interlocutor perceptions of AEL after a conversation (Bodie, Jones, Vickery,
Hatcher, & Cannava, 2014) as well as to rate AEL from an objective observer’s p­erspective
(Bodie & Jones, 2012).

­Reliability
As reported in the studies cited within this profile, the reliability of the subscale scores—
sensing (.73 < α < .85), processing (.66 < α < .77), and responding (.74 < α < .89)-display
modest to good evidence of internal consistency. Bodie, Gearhart, Denham, and Vickery
 Active - Empathic Listening Scale (AELS) 163

(2013) offered evidence for test–retest reliability for sensing (r = .77), processing (r = .73),
and responding (r = .79), as well as the scale as a whole (r = .70), providing evidence that
the AELS was invariant over a span of 14 to 45 days.

­Validity
Drollinger et al. (2006) reported evidence of the original scale’s dimensionality
through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), χ2 (41) = 95.11, p < .001, CFI = .95,
RMSEA = .19. They also provided evidence of convergent validity: All three subscales
were related to a measure of empathy. Specifically, sensing (r = .28), processing
(r = .24), and responding (r = .17) were associated with the Perspective Taking factor
of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980, 1983); and sensing (r = .18) and
processing (r = .20) were correlated with Empathic Concern (see Profile 28 for the
IRI). Furthermore, the subscales of the AELS were related to a similar measure of
active listening (Ramsey & Sohi, 1997): sensing (r = .44), processing (r = .44), and
responding (r = .57).
Bodie (2011) provided evidence of construct validity for the more general version of
the scale, χ2(41, N = 416) = 119.10, p < .001, GFI = .95, CFI = .95, RMR = .062, RMSEA = .06,
CI 90% = .05, .08. Evidence of convergent validity has also been provided. Bodie (2011)
found the AELS associated with a variety of theoretically relevant constructs: ­perspective
taking (.28 ≤ r ≤ .44), empathic responsiveness (.15 ≤ r ≤ .18), sympathetic responsiveness
(.18 ≤ r ≤ .40), and Interaction Involvement (.19 ≤ r ≤ .67; see Profile 25 for Interaction
Involvement). He concluded that the constructs overlap but are not isomorphic (see
Chapter 5 discussion of construct proliferation). Gearhart and Bodie (2011) provided
further validity evidence by comparing the AELS to the Social Skills Inventory (SSI)
(Riggio, 1986). In general, individuals with higher sensing, processing, and responding
scores reported being more skilled in SSI‐Emotional Sensitivity and the verbal
di­mensions of the SSI.
Although the AELS can be used to measure individual tendencies to enact AEL (or
perhaps the motivation to do so; see Chapter 5), Bodie et al. (2013) reported that
responses to AELS items vary as a function of situational prompts. The AELS was found
to be time invariant and situationally stable; therefore, it can be used as either a time‐
invariant trait measure or a socially fluctuating state measure.
Pence and James (2014) offered evidence of construct validity through CFA, χ2(41,
N = 162) = 114.65, p < .001, TLI = .87, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .12, CI 90% = .08, .13. Although
the fit statistics were adequate in this report, the error (RMSEA) is somewhat above
commonly accepted parameters, perhaps due to lower sample size. Pence and Vickery
(2012) also provided evidence of model fit, χ2(41) = 117.19, p < .001, TLI = .94, CFI = .96,
RMSEA = .07, CI 90% = .06, .09.

­Availability
The generalized version of the scale is presented here (Bodie, 2011) and is free to use for
research purposes with appropriate citation. All other reproduction requires written
permission.
164 Shaughan A. Keaton

­Sample Studies
Researchers have investigated the relationship of AEL to a wide variety of characteristics
and in a number of contexts: interpersonal communication (Bodie, 2011), intrapersonal
communication (Vickery, Keaton, & Bodie, 2015), supportive communication (Bodie &
Jones, 2012; Bodie et al., 2014), sales and marketing (Comer & Drollinger, 1999;
Drollinger et al., 2006), personality and emotional intelligence (Pence & Vickery, 2012),
and biological sex differences (Pence & James, 2014).
Comer and Drollinger (1999) first conceptualized a model of AEL in regard to salespeo-
ple and their relationships with customers. They argued that effective listening includes
empathy, and the combination of listening and empathy assists the personal selling process.
Drollinger et al. (2006) later developed a scale to reflect this conceptual notion, developing
the three factors in the process (sensing, processing, and receiving).
Bodie, as noted above, expanded this scale to include general conversational settings.
Bodie, Vickery, and Gearhart (2013) found that supportive people and good listeners
are described similarly, and supportive listening is best defined as a set of behaviors.
Bodie and Jones (2012) used an other‐report version of the AELS and reported that AEL
is a crucial part of supportive communication: Helpers who utilized more person‐
ce­ntered and immediate support were rated as better listeners, although the effects
were small in magnitude. Pence and Vickery (2012) examined AEL in regard to emo-
tional intelligence (EI) and personality, finding that EI predicted each AELS dimension.
Furthermore, there was a small, negative association between psychoticism and the
AELS subscales. Vickery et al. (2015) reported associations between AEL and the attrib-
utes and functions of imagined interactions (IIs), a form of mental imagery where an
individual imagines conversations with others (Honeycutt, 2010). Those not prone to
use IIs for rehearsal and self‐understanding, and those likely to use imagined conversa-
tions with others to compensate for lack of actual interaction with others, were less
likely to report responding actively to a conversational other. Furthermore, those who
do not engage in IIs before conversations or imagine a range of possible c­onversations
to gain comprehension were not prone to report engaging in acts that acknowledge
conversational partners.

­Critique
As seen above, Bodie’s general version of the AELS, although new, exhibits satisfactory
evidence of reliability and validity, including temporal validity. However, the subscales are
highly correlated, and further evidence is needed to determine whether three f­actors or
just one are necessary to explain relations with other constructs. Because of the high cor-
relations between the three latent factors, many scholars have used a composite score
rather than scores for the individual dimensions of sensing, processing, and responding.
In addition, Bodie et al. (2014) found that reports of AEL from an individual listener,
a conversational partner interacting with that listener, and a rater trained to assess AEL
behaviors were not highly correlated—suggesting the perspective from which one
views listening behavior influences scores. This finding seems to call into question the
method of using self‐ and other‐reported behaviors rather than observation of actual
listening when researchers are interested in behaviors. Given that a component of AEL
is behavioral—enacted within a particular conversation—and given that participants
 Active - Empathic Listening Scale (AELS) 165

may under‐, over‐, or otherwise misreport their own or others’ behaviors, the lack of
association suggests that individuals might not be able to discern accurately how they
or others generally listen. Consequently, researchers should make an effort to include
behavioral data alongside the AELS.

­References
Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active‐Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and
evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly, 59,
277–295. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583495
Bodie, G. D., Gearhart, C. C., Denham, J. P., & Vickery, A. J. (2013). The temporal stability
and situational contingency of active‐empathic listening. Western Journal of
Communication, 77, 113–138. doi:10.1080/10570314.2012.656216
Bodie, G. D., & Jones, S. M. (2012). The nature of supportive listening II: The role of verbal
person centeredness and nonverbal immediacy. Western Journal of Communication, 76,
250–269. doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.651255
Bodie, G. D., Jones, S. M., Vickery, A. J., Hatcher, L., & Cannava, K. (2014). Examining the
construct validity of enacted support: A multitrait‐multimethod analysis of three
perspectives for judging immediacy and listening behaviors. Communication
Monographs, 81, 495–523. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.957223
Bodie, G. D., Vickery, A. J., & Gearhart, C. C. (2013). The nature of supportive listening,
I: Exploring the relation between supportive listeners and supportive people.
International Journal of Listening, 27, 39–49. doi:10.1080/10904018.2013.732408
Comer, L. B., & Drollinger, T. (1999). Active empathetic listening and selling success:
A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 15–29.
doi:10.1080/08853134.1999.10754156
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.
JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, (10), 1–19.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113.
doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.44.1.113
Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and validation of the
active empathetic listening scale. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 161–180. doi:10.1002/
mar.20105
Honeycutt, J. M. (2010). Introduction to imagined interactions. In J. M. Honeycutt
(Ed.), Imagine that: Studies in imagined interaction (pp. 1–14). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
Pence, M. E., & James, T. A. (2014). The role of sex differences in the examination of
personality and active empathic listening: An initial exploration. International Journal
of Listening, 29, 1–10. doi:10.1080/10904018.2014.965390
Pence, M. E., & Vickery, A. J. (2012). The roles of personality and trait emotional
intelligence in the active‐empathic listening process: Evidence from correlational and
regression analyses. International Journal of Listening, 26, 159–174. doi:10.1080/109040
18.2012.712810
Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customers: The impact of perceived
salesperson listening behavior on relationship outcomes. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 25, 127–137. doi:10.1007/BF02894348
166 Shaughan A. Keaton

Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 649–660.
Vickery, A. J., Keaton, S. A., & Bodie, G. B. (2015). Intrapersonal communication and
listening goals: An examination of attributes and functions of imagined interactions
and active‐empathic listening behaviors. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 20–38.
doi:10.1080/1041794X.2014.939295

­Scale
The Active‐Empathic Listening Scale (Bodie, 2011)

Source: Bodie (2011). Reproduced with permission of Taylor & Francis.

AELS: Self‐Report Version

Instructions: Please indicate how frequently you perceive these statements to be true
about yourself, using the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never or Always or
Almost never true Almost always true
Sensing
1) I am sensitive to what others are not saying.
2) I am aware of what others imply but do not say.
3) I understand how others feel.
4) I listen for more than just the spoken words.
Processing
5) I assure others that I will remember what they say.
6) I summarize points of agreement and disagreement when appropriate.
7) I keep track of points others make.
Responding
8) I assure others that I am listening by using verbal acknowledgements.
9) I assure others that I am receptive to their ideas.
10) I ask questions that show my understanding of others’ positions.
11) I show others that I am listening by my body language (e.g., head nods).

Note: Other versions can be created by changing “I” to some other prompt such as
“My friend” or “My conversational partner” and then adjusting the verb tense (e.g.,
change “I assure” to “My friend assures”). Items are specified to load on the three latent
constructs of sensing, processing, and responding and should be randomized prior to
administration. Researchers investigating situational listening should supply a context.
Scores should be tested for adherence to model parameters prior to further statistical
analysis. Labels should be removed and items randomized prior to administration.