Running head: FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

The Relationship of Concept-Oriented Family Style to Listening Ability

Katelyn Hirsh, Mary Howe, Amy Mouradian, and Alexandria Paxman
Bryant University

Author Note
Completed for Communication Research (COM 390 A) under the direction of Dr. Kevin Pearce

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

Abstract
In this study, we looked into a possible relationship between family communication styles,
specifically a concept-oriented style, and listening ability. Participants were asked to respond to
a series of situations based on their degree of agreement to specify their designated family
communication style as well as individual listening skills. Results indicated that there is no
relationship between family communication styles and ability to listen effectively. People who
were classified as having grown up in a concept-oriented family did not score significantly
higher on the scale for listening effectiveness than those who scored lower.

Keywords: Family Communication, Family Style, Concept-Oriented, Socio-Oriented, Listening

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

The Relationship of Concept-Oriented Family Style to Listening Ability

Everyone is born into a family with different morals, values and characteristics, and
ultimately, a general family style. Several different family styles exist including socio and
concept-oriented families, which each encompass different characteristics. In this study we will
be looking at a concept-oriented family style and people who and were raised with that family
style. Our second variable will be listening ability. Listening ability can be measured on a
predetermined scale and we believe it could be an influence and developed skill from earlier in
life.
There is a gap in current available research concerning a connection between family style
and ability to listen. We will be looking specifically into the relationship between a conceptoriented family style and ability to listen. We feel that ability to listen later on in adulthood will
be a strong indicator of an influence from an individuals family style when growing up. We
plan to gather a minimum of 150 individuals of varying ages to complete a survey. Our survey
will include questions about a concept-oriented family and socio-oriented family style so we can
identify which individuals grew up in a concept-oriented environment and those who did not. We
will also ask questions about ability to listen in different scenarios. Once we have the
appropriate number of surveys complete we will take all of our resulting data and separate
individuals between concept-oriented family style and non-concept oriented family style (those
who scored socio-oriented, neither socio nor concept or both socio and concept). Participants
responses to survey questions will be what determine their family style orientation. We will then
compare the family orientation to the results of the listening section of our survey to determine if
a positive, negative or no relationship exists.

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

Literature Review
Family Style
Our focus during this study will be on concept-oriented family communication patterns.
To better understand this style of family communication, we must first touch upon what exactly
makes up a concept-oriented family, as well as try to understand the style often compared with a
concept-oriented family style. As defined by Chaffee (1972), concept oriented family style
deal[s] with the emphasis on frequency of parental constraints on the child to express his own
ideas, become exposed to controversy, and challenge the views of others (p. 161). On the
contrary, children in a socio-oriented family are encouraged by their parents to always conform
to the ideas of adults and keep the peace between friends. The official definition, again defined
by Chaffee (1972), encourages children to remain (in) harmonious interpersonal relations, avoid
controversy, and repress inner feelings on extra personal topics (p. 153). Overall, people living
in a socio-oriented family are expected to avoid disagreement all together. They are brought up
to believe it is wrong to refute the ideas of others and are expected to give in to any fight
presented to them (Lull, 2014, p. 49).
The reason we are taking special interest in concept-oriented families is because of the
way they differ from socio-oriented families. Since a concept-oriented family teaches open
communication and open minds, we believe there may be a connection in their effectiveness of
listening. Concept-oriented families are expressive and often exposed to many opinions. A
concept-oriented family is one that is encouraged to express their minds and even question adults
(Lull, 2014, p. 50). This is something a socio-oriented child would never do, because they are
taught to succumb to any arguments posed their way. James Lull (2014) defines the differences

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

between the two styles as, a preoccupation with others feelings (socio-oriented) compared to an
emphasis on presenting and discussing ideas (concept-oriented) (Lull, 2014, p. 50).
With interest specifically in a concept-oriented family communication style, it is
important for our research that we further investigate the overall subject of family
communication style. As stated, previous research on family communication has pointed to a
correlation between communication style within a family and the ways in which individuals act
upon maturity. An abundance of previous research has paid attention to the number of different
ways families communicate with one another, but no research weve found has related family
communication style to responsiveness in adulthood. As explained by Yuki Fujioka and Erica
Weintraub Austin (2002), concept-oriented parents tend to consider communication a tool to
convey and share views (Fujioka & Austin, 2002, p. 644). This type of family communication
style would most likely encompass individuals with a more open mind when it comes to general
communication.
With a surge in technology in recent years, research aims at analyzing how families
interact on the web. Children who are open to communicate with their parents on social
network sites (SNSs) may have grown up in a concept-oriented family that encourages the
sharing of viewpoints and individual beliefs (reflected by their use of personal social networking
sites). Being more open with family may indicate this concept-oriented style, as well.
According to a study by Ball, Wanzer, and Servoss, young adults sex and conversation
orientation were associated with friending parents on Facebook (Ball, Wanzer, & Servoss, 2013,
p. 623). Females being more open to communicate with their parents via SNSs indicates a
significant gender difference. Further indication of gender differences in family communication
are displayed in research on communication competence and family communication patterns. It

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

is found that daughters look to family communication styles as an indicator of communication

competence, while sons will value each parents communication competence individually in
comparison to his own (Schrodt et al, 2009, p 869). This information is helpful is the forming of
our hypothesis. Because kids who are willing to share their personal lives were indicated by the
researchers as having high conversational family communication patterns, we see a relationship
with the definition of a concept-oriented family style. We wonder if this open communication
will further indicate a better score on the listening scale.
A concept-oriented family style indicates a closeness in family relationships. As earlier
indicated, concept-oriented families encourage discussion (Lull, 2014, p. 50). For example,
family cohesiveness, as expressed by Shigeto, Mangelsdorf, and Brown (2014), is related to a
strong level of closeness and emotional connection (Shigeto, Mangelsdorf, & Brown, 2014, p.
211). Results in this study directed that family cohesiveness in infancy directly influences higher
communication with both parents once the child grows to be a toddler (p. 211). These results
could foreshadow a closer family dynamic (concept-oriented family style) that would result in a
more open relationship between parents and children through the years. If we try to generalize
this idea, it could make sense to believe that these children also grow up to have better listening
skills because of their practice of being open communicators with their parents.
Similarly, Odenweller, Booth-Butterfield, and Weber (2014) studied helicopter parents,
which can be closely associated with an authoritarian parenting style. Odenweller et al (2014)
found that, scholars have yet to provide evidence that helicopter parents encourage their
children to be open about their private thoughts and feelings, to participate in family decision
making, and to challenge others views and opinions (Odenweller et al, 2014, p. 418).
Demonstrating a more conservative based family style, and most similar to the socio-oriented

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

family style weve discussed, childrens voices are not heard in the child-parent relationship.
From this, we can question how this transfers in interpersonal communication for the children
who experience this.
Communication apprehension, quite the opposite of what we believe a concept-oriented
family would emulate, is defined by Wrench (2013) and his colleagues as, fear or anxiety
associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons
(Wrench, Thomas-Maddox, Richmond, McCroskey, 2013, p. 580). Lucchetti, Powers, and Love
(2002), found that, Young adults levels of parent-child communication apprehension were
moderately correlated with (a) their general communicative contact with their parents, and (b)
their levels of communicative apprehension in interpersonal settings (Lucchetti et al, 2002, p.
119). Here, we can assume that a family who is apprehensive about their relationship and
communication would be involved in a socio-oriented family communication style. In this case,
this information is crucial to our research on how family communication styles affect listening
skills. If someone is high in communication apprehension due to their socio-oriented, discussion
discouraged environment, we believe this specifies an unwillingness to listen effectively.
Affection, behavioral control, and psychological control are determinants of overall
parenting style in a study by Aunola and Nurmi (2005). They found that, A high level of
maternal psychological control combined with high affection predicted increases in the levels of
children's internal and external problem behaviors (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005, p. 1154). Here,
researchers were studying how these different characteristics of parenting interact when used
simultaneously. In this case, mixing characteristics makes the relationship unclear. This would
indicate more of a non-concept oriented (socio-oriented) family style because the mothers were
controlling of their children. The lean towards children to be more problematic would therefore

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

lead us to believe that a socio-oriented style family would be less communicative (problem
children), making our interest on the subject significant.
The term cohesion has been used in a number of previous research studies. Closeness
within a family has all together pointed toward a more communicative and open family dynamic,
as formerly implied. In a study on predicting child behavior by Shigeto et al (2014), it was
predicted and proven that cohesive family units produce children that are capable and
comfortable interacting with both of their parents (Shigeto et al, 2014, p. 211). What was unclear
was how much of the interaction was related to good listening skills. With all this research on
family communication and the way each style influences the child-parent interaction, there is
little information on applying these family styles to situations as the child matures into
adulthood. Communication involves a source who initiates a message and a receiver (Wrench et
al, 2013, p. 5). With this in mind, there seems to be no previous research on the importance of
receiving a message. Listening plays a large role in receiving communicated messages; how can
we investigate a persons listen ability and connect it to the family communication style they
were raised in?
Listening Ability
As Witkin and Trochim stated in their 1997 study of listening constructs, There is as yet
no universally accepted view regarding its (listening) definition and conceptualization.(Witkin
& Trochim, 1997). As far as our research can tell, this is still true.
In order to study listening effectiveness as our second variable, we will be using the
HURIER model developed by Judi Brownell in 2010. In order to study listening, the HURIER
model first responds to six questions to help categorize listening and how it should be measured.

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

First, the HURIER model views listening as six interrelated processes which function
together but place importance on different behaviors associated with listening. The HURIER
model focuses on both verbal and non-verbal communications, stressing the importance of each.
HURIER also makes sure to extend beyond face-to-face communications to include a variety of
communication modes, ensuring that all types of communication are included.
The HURIER model only allows for conscious listening, arguing that it is only trying to
measure effective listening as a product of active listening. The scale does place importance on
response, be it verbal or non-verbal, arguing that how one responds is an essential means of
measuring how well one listens.
The last specific question which the HURIER model background addresses is, Is
listening always purposeful?, and the answer is no. Listening can happen spontaneously and one
is never able to tell what the message is that they will be receiving. Brownell states that one may
be expecting to be entertained and instead receive valuable information which changes their
point of view, or another message altogether. It is not important what message is expected, what
must be measured is how well the intended messages was in fact received and responded to
(Brownell, 2006 p.57).
This scale is a collection of 36 questions which break down listening into six separate
components. These components are Hearing, Interpreting, Understanding, Evaluating,
Remembering, and Responding. Six of the 36 questions are linked to one of these components
and scored for a total of anywhere from 10-30 points. Should a participant score anywhere from
10-15 points, they are considered by this scale to perceive some problems in their listening
behavior, 15-20 points, you consider your listening skills adequate, 20-25 points, you believe

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

10

you are a good listener, and 25-30 points you see yourself as an excellent listener (Brownell,
2006 p.34).
For the purposes of this study, we will not be using this scoring method, developed for
the HURIER model, we will be using the scale in our own way to determine how effectively a
participant listens.
For the purposes of this study, we will not be using this scoring method, developed for the
HURIER model, we will be using the scale in our own way, as described in our methods, to
determine how effectively a participant listens.
Rationale and Hypothesis
According to Roberts and Vinson (1998), people listen differently due to the motivation
they have to listen (Roberts & Venison, 1998, p. 46). This motivation is both conscious and
unconscious. In concept-oriented family communication, much of this motivation is
intentionally created by parents as parents involvement is positive in the context of concept
orientation (Fujioka & Austin, 2002, p. 1). Concept-oriented family communication is
associated with an open mode of parent-child communication such that parents and children
express and exchange their ideas and opinions freely and frequently (Fujioka & Austin, 2002, p.
5-6). This creates openness within a family. Research has told us parents who have conceptoriented communication with their children have a more positive effect of their children when it
comes to practical-decisions making styles (Kim et al, 2009, p. 1). These children unconsciously
listen to their parents and in turn, make more practical decisions. Therefore we hypothesize:
H1: Children who grew up in a concept-oriented family style will have better listening
abilities than children who did not grow up in a concept-oriented family style.
Method
Procedure and Sample

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

11

The participants from our study were students at a small, private Northeastern college, as
well as other participants who found out about our study through network connections. We
posted our survey online, distributing it using social media, email and other forms of mediated
communication. Using the online software Survey Monkey, our goal was to reach as many
demographics as possible. The survey was administered over a 20-day time span. Of the 113
participants, 25 surveys were not fully completed, therefore we have excluded them from our
analysis. In our 88 remaining participants, 26 were males (29.5%) and 62 were females (70.5%).
The average age was 29.92 years.
Measurement and Analytics
Our study has two variables: family communication styles and listening effectiveness.
Our independent variable is the concept-oriented family style and our dependent variable is
listening effectiveness. We measured our participants score on their effectiveness of listening on
the HURIER Model (Brownell, 2006 p. 32-34) and their family communication style to see if
they grew up in a concept-oriented family communication style with the Family Communication
Patterns Scale (Rubin, Palmgreen & Sypher, 1994, p. 159-163).
HURIER Listening Profile. The Hurier Listening Profile examines the different aspects of
listening. As stated before, the scale breaks down the listening into six different components:
hearing, understanding, remembering, interpreting, evaluating, and responding. This scale asks
participants to rank themselves from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), based on how
frequently they perform the stated behavior (Brownell, 2006). The top third of scores were
considered to be effective listeners (M = 141.43, SD = 15.71). Chronbachs alpha for the
measure was .93.

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

12

This test was originally intended to be a self-test, where participants would rank
themselves and tally up their own scores. It is a tool used for individuals to determine which
aspects of listening they could work on. Concerning validity, the scale has been validated
through a factor analysis. Considering that this was intended as a self-test to determine listening
ability, we believed that this scale would act as a valid and reliable scale for our study.
Family Communication Patterns. Family Communication Patterns are separated into two
categories: concept-oriented family style and socio-oriented family style. In order to determine
which communication style an individual grew up in, we used the Family Communication
Patterns Scale created by Chafee, McLeod and Atkin (Rubin et al. 1994). The scale offers ten
statements that a parent would say to a child from both styles of family communication (Rubin et
al. 1994). Participants were asked to respond to the statements with how often they would have
heard this from their parent(s) or guardian(s): Often = 3; Sometimes = 2; Rarely = 1; Never = 0.
We randomized these questions in order to avoid subliminal influencing by grouping the same
types of questions together. In order to determine which style the participant falls into, we
scored concept-oriented as anyone who scored ten and above. (concept: M = 9.44, SD = 3.07,
socio: M=7.39, SD = 3.35). Everything below ten was considered not concept-oriented. The
Cronbachs alpha measure for concept-oriented was .751 while the Cronbachs measure for
socio-oriented was .746.
This scale proves to be controversial because there is concern that there is not enough
validity. In the article, Measurement of Family Communication Patterns, Albert Tims and
Jonathan Masland explain that there is a difference between what the children reported as their
family communication pattern, and what the parents reported (Tims & Masland, 1985, p. 39-40).
However, considering that the listening ability is purely based off of the individual, the parents

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

13

response would not change the data. With that in mind, we considered this a valid and reliable
scale for the purposes of our study.

Results
Our hypothesis predicted that people who grew up in a concept-oriented family style
would have better listening abilities. An independent t-test was used to test the difference
between those who scored high in concept-oriented characteristics and ability to listen
effectively. Results showed that the type of family communication style an individual grew up in
had no effect on their listening ability t(86) = 1.14, p=.235.

Discussion
By administering surveys testing level of listening ability and family style, we tested one
hypothesis to examine the difference. Our hypothesis predicted that people who grew up in a
concept-oriented family style would score higher on the HURIER listening scale than those who
did not grow up in a concept-oriented family style. The results showed that there is no
relationship between listening ability and family style. These results were surprising as the
characteristics of a concept-oriented family style contribute to and foster strong listening skills.
Due to the age of the scale we used there was some confusion on how to properly score the data
received. As mentioned in the results, the data we did received was highly accurate but we were
not able to find a strong enough connection between concept -family styles and listening ability.
A strong contributor to our lack of relationship could have been the number of people surveyed
or the number of people who tested as concept-oriented. Many of the people who participated in
our survey were neither concept or socio-oriented or both concept and socio-oriented. This was

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

14

surprising to us and made it more difficult to score the data as there were less completely
concept-oriented participants.
This study has several limitations. Our data was collected via a volunteer sample, which
is less accuracy than a random sample. We posted our survey on Facebook and asked all of our
friends to complete the survey. Those who choose to complete the survey did it voluntarily and
without reward. We also sent the survey via e-mail to fellow undergraduate students who also
completed the survey voluntarily. We were also limited by the type of survey we administered.
By using online software (Survey Monkey) we were not available to answer questions
participants may have or explain any questions. We did not conduct a pilot test so we were
unsure if our questionnaire was easy to understand. Last, the questions concerning family style
asked people to remember back to their childhood. By asking people, some as old as seventyeight, to remember back to when they were children we are relying on their memories, which
may not be completely accurate. The scale also asked questions that were geared towards
females. The listening ability scale asks participants how likely they would be to partake in
certain listening-related activities. Our data is less accurate because we did not actually test the
listening for people to do these activities we simply asked them to predict how they would react
in such a situation.
Future research should explore how certain elements of a concept-oriented family style
contribute to listening ability. Perhaps the emphasis on discussions or the low levels of
televisions watched specifically could draw more of a connection with listening ability. Future
research could also try and retest our hypothesis with different methods. Future researchers
could gather a random sample and test listening ability in a physical setting. Then, in a separate
setting they could test family style by asking participants to complete the scale but also asking

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

15

questions about their family to increase their memory level. Additionally, future research could
examine if people who grew up in a concept-oriented family were more likely to score high on
scales other than listening ability; possibly communication apprehension, or introvert versus
extrovert personalities. Although we did not find any conclusions in our research, the
possibilities for future research are endless.

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

16

References
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children's problem behavior.
Child development, 76(6), 1144-1159.
Ball, H., Wanzer, M. B., & Servoss, T. J. (2013). ParentChild Communication on Facebook:
Family Communication Patterns and Young Adults' Decisions to Friend Parents.
Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 615-629.
Brownell, J. (2006). Listening: Attitudes, principles, and skills (3rd ed.). Boston, Massachusetts:
Pearson.
Chaffee, S. H. (1972). Television and adolescent aggressiveness (overview).Television
and
social behavior, 3.
Fujioka, Y., & Austin, E. (2002). The Relationship Of Family Communication Patterns To
Parental Mediation Styles. Communication Research, 642-665.
Givertz, M., & Segrin, C. (2014). The Association Between Overinvolved Parenting and Young
Adults Self-Efficacy, Psychological Entitlement, and Family Communication.
Communication Research, 41(8), 1111-1136.
Grebelsky-Lichtman, T. (2014). Children's Verbal and Nonverbal Congruent and Incongruent
Communication During Parent-Child Interactions. Human Communication Research,
40(4), 415-441.
Hamon, J. D., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Do Parenting Styles Moderate the Association Between
Family Conformity Orientation and Young Adults' Mental Well-Being?. Journal Of
Family Communication, 12(2), 151-166.
Johnson, I. W., Pearce, C. G., Tuten, T. L., & Sinclair, L. (2003). Self-imposed silence and
perceived listening effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(2), 23-38.

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

17

Jumper, R. (2008). Parenting Style and Parent-Child Communication: Are there Differences
between Parents of Gifted Adolescents and Parents of Non-Labeled Adolescents?.
Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.
Kang, T. (2012). Gendered media, changing intimacy: internet-mediated transnational
communication in the family sphere. Media, Culture & Society,34(2), 146-161.
Kim, C., Lee, H., & Tomiuk, M. A. (2009). Adolescents' perceptions of family communication
patterns and some aspects of their consumer socialization. Psychology & Marketing,
26(10), 888-907.
Lucchetti, A. E., Powers, W. G., & Love, D. E. (2002). The Empirical Development of the
Child-Parent Communication Apprehension Scale for Use With Young Adults. Journal
Of Family Communication, 2(3), 109-131
Lull, J. (2014). Family communication patterns and the social uses of television. In Inside
family viewing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Odenweller, K. G., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Weber, K. (2014). Investigating Helicopter
Parenting, Family Environments, and Relational Outcomes for Millennials.
Communication Studies, 65(4), 407-425.
Rangarajan, S., & Kelly, L. (2006). Family communication patterns, family environment, and the
impact of parental alcoholism on offspring self-esteem.Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 23(4), 655-671.
Richmond, V. P., & Hickson, M. III. (2001). Going public: A practical guide to public talk.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Roberts, C. V., & Vinson, L. (1998). Relationship Among Willingness to Listen, Receiver
Apprehension, Communication Apprehension, Communication Competence, and

FAMILY COMMUNICATION STYLES AND LISTENING ABILITY

18

Dogmatism. International Journal Of Listening, 1240.

Rubin, R., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. (1994). Communication Research Measures: A
Sourcebook (pp. 159-163). New York: Guilford Press.
Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., Jernberg, K. A., Larson, L., Brown, N., & Glonek, K. (2009).
Family communication patterns as mediators of communication competence in the
parentchild relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(6-7),
853-874.
Shigeto, A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Brown, G. L. (2014). Roles of family cohesiveness, marital
adjustment, and child temperament in predicting child behavior with mothers and fathers.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 200-220.a
Tims, A., & Masland, J. (1985). Measurement Of Family Communication Patterns.
Communication Research, 35-57.
Witkin, B. R., & Trochim, W. K. (1997). Toward a Synthesis of Listening Constructs: A
Concept Map Analysis. International Journal Of Listening, 1169-87.
Wrench, J., Thomas-Maddox, C., Peck Richmond, V., & McCroskey, J. (2013). Quan
(2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title,
Pages From - To.
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.