Student Communicative Outcome

This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]
On: 19 August 2015, At: 10:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Communication Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20
Instructor Misbehavior and

Forgiveness: An Examination of Student
Communicative Outcomes in the
Aftermath of Instructor Misbehavior
Jessalyn I. Vallade & Colleen M. Malachowski
Published online: 19 Jun 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Jessalyn I. Vallade & Colleen M. Malachowski (2015): Instructor Misbehavior and
Forgiveness: An Examination of Student Communicative Outcomes in the Aftermath of Instructor
Misbehavior, Communication Education, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2015.1038728
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038728
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 10:01 19 August 2015
2015, pp. 1–24
Instructor Misbehavior and Forgiveness:

An Examination of Student
Communicative Outcomes in the
Aftermath of Instructor Misbehavior
Jessalyn I. Vallade & Colleen M. Malachowski
Using Attribution Theory as a theoretical framework, this study explored the role of
forgiveness in impacting student nonverbal responsiveness, out-of-class communication
(OCC), and perceptions of cognitive and affective learning following instructor
misbehavior. Additionally, the role of instructor nonverbal immediacy was examined.
Participants included 144 undergraduate students who reported on their perceptions of
instructor misbehavior. Results indicated that students’ perceptions of instructor
misbehavior severity and blameworthiness were negative predictors, and instructor
nonverbal immediacy was a positive predictor, of students’ forgiveness. Path analyses
indicated that forgiveness components mediated the relationships between misbehavior
severity and instructor blameworthiness and students’ communicative behaviors, where
increased forgiveness predicted increased OCC and nonverbal responsiveness. Addi-
tionally, forgiveness components mediated the relationships between perceptions of
instructor blameworthiness with students’ perceptions of cognitive learning, with
increased forgiveness predicting increased perceptions of cognitive learning. Results
complement the emerging body of literature on forgiveness of instructor misbehavior.
Keywords: Instructor Misbehavior; Student Nonverbal Responsiveness; Instructor

Nonverbal Immediacy; Out-of-Class Communication; Forgiveness
Instructional communication scholars have spent much time and energy studying
learning and the instructor and student behaviors that can enhance or inhibit this
Jessalyn I. Vallade (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2014) is a Faculty Lecturer in the Division of Instructional
Communication and Research at the University of Kentucky. Colleen M. Malachowski (Ph.D., West Virginia
University, 2012) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Regis College.
Correspondence to: Jessalyn I. Vallade, Division of Instructional Communication and Research, 310 Lucille
Little Library, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, U.S.A. Email: jessalyn.vallade@uky.edu.
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) © 2015 National Communication Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038728
2 J. I. Vallade and C. M. Malachowski
process (Myers, 2010). As part of this endeavor, Kearney, Plax, Hays, and Ivey (1991)
identified instructor misbehaviors, defined as those specific teaching behaviors that
interfere with classroom instruction or student learning. More specifically, Kearney
et al. outlined three general categories of instructor misbehaviors: incompetence,
indolence, and offensiveness.
When instructors are incompetent, their behaviors suggest to students that they do
not possess the teaching skills necessary for effective instruction, including behaviors
such as teaching in a boring, confusing, or unclear manner, engaging in information
overload, and failing to exhibit understanding of the subject matter. When instructors
are indolent, their behaviors suggest that they do not possess the procedural skills
necessary for effective instruction, including behaviors such as being absent or late to
class, appearing unprepared and disorganized, and deviating from the syllabus. When
instructors are offensive, their behaviors suggest to students that they do not possess
the interpersonal communication skills necessary for effective instruction. Some
offensive behaviors include addressing students in a verbally abusive or sarcastic
manner, demonstrating favoritism, and possessing a generally negative personality.
Students who perceive an instructor to be misbehaving report lower levels of
motivation to communicate with their instructors (Goodboy, Myers, & Bolkan, 2010)
or participate in class (Goodboy & Bolkan, 2009), and report less cognitive learning
(Goodboy & Bolkan, 2009), affective learning (Banfield, Richmond, & McCroskey,
2006; Wanzer & McCroskey, 1998), and state motivation (Goodboy & Bolkan, 2009;
Zhang, 2007). Further, following instructor misbehavior, students are more likely to
engage in various forms of instructional dissent (Goodboy, 2011). Students perceive
misbehaving instructors as less nonverbally immediate (Kelsey, Kearney, Plax, Allen,
& Ritter, 2004; Thweatt & McCroskey, 1996), credible (Banfield et al., 2006; Semlak &
Pearson, 2008; Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998), and assertive and responsive (Wanzer
& McCroskey, 1998). Given the negative consequences associated with instructor
misbehaver, the purpose of the present investigation was to examine the role of
forgiveness in impacting students’ communicative behavior and perceived learning
after instructor misbehavior occurs. Attribution Theory (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1986)
provides insight into how and why forgiveness may be related to communicative
behavior and learning outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
Schrodt and Witt (2006) called for more research to examine the interactions among
communication constructs and student attributions to better reflect the complexity of
instructional communication. In general, attributions involve the process of inter-
preting or explaining one’s own and/or others’ behavior. Attribution Theory (Heider,
1958; Weiner, 1986) posits that individuals make internal or external attributions to
explain situations, which are particularly important to consider in the context of the
current investigation to better understand why a student may (or may not) forgive an
instructor. Internal attributions are used to explain behaviors through dispositions,
personality, attitudes, and character. Conversely, external attributions use situational
Communication Education 3
factors to explain behavior. Generally, people are more forgiving of behaviors believed
to be caused by external forces, rather than internal forces (Weiner, 1986).
The fundamental attribution error, also referred to as self-serving bias, suggests
that individuals have difficulty separating personal evaluation from task evaluation
(Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1986). Not surprisingly, this phenomenon has been examined
in the instructional context, indicating that students attribute negative feedback to
external causes in order to free themselves from the blame of their own poor work
(Booth-Butterfield, 1989). This may also be true of students’ reactions to perceived
instructor misbehavior. For example, LaBelle and Martin (2014) found that students
attributed disagreements with instructors to instructors’ internal characteristics,
which positively related to students’ instructional dissent. Additionally, McPherson
and Young (2004) found that students were more likely to attribute instructor
distributive and passive aggression internally, rather than externally. These findings
support the idea that when students make internal attributions to (i.e., blame)
instructors, particularly for behaviors they perceive as negative (i.e., severe), they are
more likely to enact negative behaviors, and perhaps, may be less likely to forgive.
Further, Kelsey et al. (2004) found that students made internal attributions for
instructor misbehavior. These findings are especially important to the current
investigation, which explored the role of forgiveness and instructor nonverbal
immediacy following misbehavior. It is plausible that forgiveness may require
students to make external attributions after misbehaver occurs. Accordingly, the
following literature presents an overview of forgiveness and nonverbal immediacy in
the instructional context.
Misbehavior and the Instructor–Student Relationship

Regardless of whether blame is attributed internally or externally, instructor
misbehaviors have several implications for the instructor–student relationship.
Previous research indicated that students perceive instructor misbehaviors as
relational transgressions (Vallade, Martin, & Vela, in press; Vallade & Myers, 2014)
within this interpersonal relationship (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Interpersonal
communication scholars define a relational transgression as any act that violates
implicit or explicit relationship rules, norms, or expectations (Metts, 1994; Metts &
Cupach, 2007). Given students’ identification of instructor misbehaviors as relational
transgressions, additional information can be gleaned from understanding the
attributions students make about such misbehaviors; research on interpersonal
forgiveness has been examined as a contributing factor in instructional communica-
tion outcomes.
Interpersonal Forgiveness
Forgiveness is conceptualized as a process whereby people have (a) increased feelings
of benevolence (i.e., positive thoughts and feelings) toward and (b) decreased
motivation to avoid or seek retaliation against an individual following a relational
transgression (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; McCullough et al., 1998).
When one has not forgiven a transgressor, that person may continue to experience
lower levels of positive feelings, and be more highly motivated to avoid or seek
revenge against the transgressor (McCullough et al., 1997). Importantly, forgiveness
has been conceptualized many ways, including as a communicative process (Waldron
& Kelley, 2005) that involves “releasing the hostility and resentment” that follows a
transgression (or perhaps an instructor misbehavior), and can be either conditional or
unconditional (p. 723). Given that forgiveness can take a variety of forms and may
take place over a long period of time, the current study focused on the McCullough
et al. (1998) and McCullough and Hoyt (2002) Transgression-Related Interpersonal
Motivations Inventory to operationalize forgiveness, which considers both intraper-
sonal (i.e., benevolence) and communicative (i.e., motivation to avoid/retaliate)

processes involved with forgiveness.
Forgiveness has been linked with positive outcomes in interpersonal research,
including positive associations with relational satisfaction (Kachadourian, Fincham, &
Davila, 2004; McCullough et al., 1998), and negative associations with rumination
(Fehr, Gelfland, & Nag, 2010) and psychological aggression towards a transgressor
(Fincham & Beach, 2002). Although some types of transgressions tend to have more
negative consequences than others, outcomes are more likely a result of the
perceptions one has of the transgression itself, as well as the person who has
transgressed (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002; Morse & Metts, 2011).
Given that individuals tend to respond negatively to others when they attribute
negative behaviors internally (i.e., blame), and responses within the classroom context
are often linked to students’ perceptions of misbehavior severity (e.g., Metts &
Cupach, 2007; Vallade & Myers, 2014), the misbehavior itself may not be the impetus
for negative consequences. Instead, it may be that student perceptions of the severity
of the misbehavior and the blameworthiness of the instructor play a larger role in
influencing student outcomes.
Misbehavior severity
Transgression severity refers to the level of overall negative affect that an individual
experiences following a relational transgression in interpersonal relationships
(Merolla, 2008). Generally, the more negative the transgression is perceived to be,
the less likely individuals are to forgive the transgressor (Guerrero & Bachman, 2010;
Merolla & Zhang, 2011; Morse & Metts, 2011) and the more likely individuals are to
either engage in destructive communicative responses (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a)
or terminate the relationship (Ferrara & Levine, 2009). Indeed, the degree of severity
perceived by the target of the transgression has been identified as a key predictor of
forgiveness (Metts & Cupach, 2007).
Instructor blameworthiness
Transgressor blameworthiness is conceptualized as a person’s perception of either the
transgressor’s level of responsibility for the transgression or the intent with which the
transgressor committed the transgression (Merolla, 2008). This is an especially
important aspect to consider in order to better understand if a student is attributing
misbehavior internally or externally. When a transgressor is perceived to be
responsible for the transgression and/or the transgression is considered to be
intentional (i.e., blameworthy), people are less likely to forgive the transgressor
(Boon & Sulsky, 1997; Fehr, Gelfland, & Nag, 2010) and more likely to seek revenge
(Bachman & Guerrero, 2006b). Fincham (2000) asserted that individuals were
unlikely to forgive a transgressor to the extent that the transgression was viewed as
intentional, blameworthy, and selfishly motivated. Additionally, attributing blame to
a transgressor results in more pronounced increases in negative motivations (i.e.,
avoidance and/or retaliation) and decreases in positive perceptions of the transgressor
(McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003). These trends translate to the college
classroom, where students report a lower likelihood of forgiveness when an instructor

commits a misbehavior perceived to be high in severity and blameworthiness
(Vallade et al., in press; Vallade & Myers, 2014).
Given the negative outcomes generally associated with instructor misbehaviors and
internal attributions, it seems desirable to mitigate negative student perceptions and/
or to encourage student forgiveness of these behaviors. Scholars have found
compelling evidence to suggest that individuals sometimes choose to respond
prosocially to transgressions, resulting in forgiveness outcomes (Brandau-Brown &
Ragsdale, 2008; Emmers-Sommer, 2003; Kachadourian et al., 2004). Thus, it is
important to explore factors that may contribute to prosocial responses after a
transgression occurs. Students may be less likely to perceive misbehaviors as severe or
blameworthy, and may be more likely to forgive instructor misbehavior, to the extent
that they feel they have a positive and satisfying relationship with their instructor.
One indicator of such a relationship is nonverbal immediacy, as nonverbal behaviors
are often primary indicators of affect in relationships (Andersen, 1979).
Instructor Nonverbal Immediacy

Nonverbal immediacy includes those behaviors that reduce physical and psycholo-
gical distance between students and instructors (Andersen, 1979) through instructor
use of low inference behaviors such as eye contact, smiling, use of gestures, and vocal
variety (Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). Students also perceive nonverbally
immediate instructors as more caring (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998), confirming
(Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2010), responsive and assertive (Thomas, Richmond,
& McCroskey, 1994), credible (Santilli, Miller, & Katt, 2011; Thweatt & McCroskey,
1998), and less verbally aggressive (Rocca & McCroskey, 1999). All of these
characteristics are indicative of positive perceptions of immediate instructors, and
also suggest a healthy student–instructor relationship. Therefore, it is plausible that
nonverbally immediate instructors’ misbehaviors may be perceived as less severe or
blameworthy, and may thus be forgiven more easily. Based on previous research
indicating that nonimmediate instructors are perceived as engaging in misbehaviors
even when no misbehavior is actually present (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1996), scholars
have concluded that instructors should maintain nonverbal immediacy to protect a
positive image, even in the face of misbehavior (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998). This
suggests that the relationship established by a nonverbally immediate instructor can
mitigate the negative consequences of misbehavior by interacting with students’
perceptions of misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness. Based on this
contention, hypothesis one predicted:
H1: Instructors’ perceived nonverbal immediacy interacts with perceptions of instructor

misbehavior to reduce perceived severity and blameworthiness, predicting increased
student forgiveness (i.e., higher benevolence, lower motivations to avoid and retaliate).
Students’ Communicative Responses to Instructor Misbehavior

If a student is able to forgive an instructor after a misbehavior occurs, it is plausible
that students’ communicative behavior will be affected. Forgiveness may directly and
indirectly impact both the relationship students have with an instructor as well as
their learning in the class. Students may show (or not show) forgiveness both verbally
and nonverbally, in and out of the classroom setting. For example, a student may act
nonverbally responsive in the classroom (e.g., raise hand more, lean forward in their
seat) to indicate forgiveness. In contrast, when an instructor is not forgiven, students
are highly motivated to avoid their instructor (Vallade et al., in press; Vallade &
Myers, 2014), and may do so by acting less nonverbally responsive.
Additionally, out-of-class communication (OCC) is usually initiated by the
student, and refers to the communication that takes place between instructors and
students outside of formal class time (Fusani, 1994), including speaking with an
instructor in the hallway, emailing or calling an instructor, and speaking with
instructors before or after class (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003). OCC is often a function of
students’ perceptions of instructor behaviors in class (Merolla & Koermer, 2002). For
example, OCC is positively related with instructor verbal and nonverbal immediacy
and perceived instructor responsiveness (Aylor & Oppliger, 2003; Jaasma & Koper,
1999), and students report greater affect for the instructor and the course when they
engage in OCC (Knapp & Martin, 2002). Given that students’ communicative
behaviors are often a function of instructors’ (mis)behaviors, perceptions of instructor
misbehavior should be associated with students’ nonverbal responsiveness and OCC.
Additionally, following an instructor misbehavior, students’ affect for the instructor
(i.e., benevolence) and negative motivations (i.e., retaliation and avoidance) should be
associated with their likelihood to engage communicatively with instructors. Thus,
the following relationships were predicted:
H2: Perceptions of misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness are negatively

associated with students’ nonverbal responsiveness and OCC.
H3: Students’ nonverbal responsiveness and OCC is positively associated with students’
benevolence and negatively associated with motivations to retaliate and avoid.
Given that students tend to be motivated to avoid instructors following misbehaviors
perceived to be highly severe and blameworthy (i.e., attributed to internal causes)
(Vallade & Myers, 2014), it is possible that forgiveness may mediate the relationship
between these perceptions and students’ communication behavior. Vallade et al.
(in press) found that forgiveness mediated the relationship between perceptions of
misbehavior and students’ subsequent instructional dissent, suggesting that forgive-
ness may act as a mediator for additional communication behaviors. However, given
that instructor misbehavior is often a trigger of instructional dissent (Goodboy, 2011),
and has not been shown to directly trigger changes in students’ responsiveness or
OCC, research question one asked:
RQ1: Do benevolence, motivation to retaliate, and motivation to avoid mediate the

relationship between misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness, respectively,
and students’ nonverbal responsiveness and OCC?
Perceptions of Student Learning Following Instructor Misbehavior

Perceived student learning is an additional outcome that may be impacted by student
forgiveness of instructor misbehavior. For example, if students perceive a misbehavior
to be particularly severe or blameworthy, they may be motivated to avoid their
instructor, or could be harboring negative feelings or resentment toward their
instructor, which may result in a lack of attendance or participation in class,
detracting from learning. Importantly, much of the instructional communication
literature on cognitive learning assesses perceived student learning versus actual
student learning measured with behavioral data. Consistent with previous studies’
assessment of perceived student learning (Vallade et al., in press), students’
perceptions of misbehavior should be significantly associated with their perceived
learning outcomes:
H4: Misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness are negatively associated with
students’ perceived cognitive and affective learning.
Vallade et al. (in press) discovered that students’ forgiveness mediated the relationship
between perceptions of instructor misbehavior and perceptions of cognitive and
affective learning outcomes. Cognitive learning focuses on “the acquisition of
knowledge and the ability to understand and use knowledge” (Mottet & Beebe, 2006,
p. 7), and comprises factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Previous scholars have found that perceived learning
and actual learning are not related to each other, and thus caution against claims of
measuring cognitive learning (Hess, Smythe, & Communication 451, 2001; Hooker &
Denker, 2013; Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). The current investigation
measured perceptions of cognitive learning, including students’ perceptions of their
ability to recall and use knowledge from a particular class, as does most research on
cognitive learning. Affective learning, on the other hand, involves “addressing,
changing, or reinforcing students’ attitudes, beliefs, values, and underlying emotions or
feelings as they relate to the knowledge and skills they are acquiring” (Mottet & Beebe,
2006, p. 8). In order to further examine and validate Vallade et al.’s (in press) results,
the following hypothesis was forwarded:
H5: Benevolence, motivation to retaliate, and motivation to avoid mediate the

relationships between misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness, respect-
ively, and students’ perceptions of cognitive and affective learning.
Method
Participants
A convenience sample was used to obtain 144 participants (71 men and 73 women)
enrolled in multiple sections of communication courses at a large Mid-Atlantic
university. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 28 years (M = 19.6, SD = 1.8).
Ethnic makeup of the sample was 80% Caucasian, 5% African American, 4%
Hispanic, 1% Asian, 1% Native American, and 3% other. The class rank of the
participants consisted of 52 first-year students, 27 sophomores, 39 juniors, 25 seniors,
and 1 other. Participants received minimal extra credit or course credit for their
participation.
Procedures and Instrumentation

Following approval from the Institutional Review Board, data collection proceeded in
two steps. First, following the procedures utilized in previous relational transgression
research (McCullough et al., 1998; Roloff, Soule, & Carey, 2001) and instructor
misbehavior research (Vallade et al., in press; Vallade & Myers, 2014), participants
were provided a definition of an instructor misbehavior/transgression (see Vallade
et al., in press) and were then asked to briefly describe an instructor misbehavior they
had experienced. Open-ended descriptions of relational transgressions were elicited in
order to focus students’ attention on one particular event.
Students reported on misbehaviors committed by 64 male instructors and 80
female instructors. Further, 143 students reported on a face-to-face class. The
majority of participants disclosed that this was their first time taking a class with this
instructor (91%). A wide range of subject matters were reported, including Math/
Statistics (17%), Communication/Rhetoric (10%), English (9%), and Chemistry (7%).
Participants were then instructed to complete eight measures, described in detail
below. Unless otherwise noted, all items were measured on a Likert scale ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). All scale means, standard deviations,
and Cronbach alpha reliabilities are available in Table 1.
Instructor misbehavior severity

The Measure of Transgression Severity (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006b) is a 4-item
measure that asks participants to report their perceptions of the severity of the
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Two-Tailed Correlations among All Variables
Variable M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Severity 4.90 1.46 .86
2. Blame 4.65 1.31 .78 .63**
3. Immediacy 4.51 1.35 .85 −.14* −.20*
4. Benevolence 4.17 1.34 .88 −.17* −.34** .44**
5. Motivation to Retaliate 2.03 1.17 .83 .28** .36** −.21* −.34**
6. Motivation to Avoid 3.86 1.58 .89 −.28** .41** −.33** −.55** .42**
7. Responsiveness 4.60 1.39 .79 .11 −.06 .15* .28** −.27** −.28**
8. OCC 2.05 0.85 .84 −.00 −.16* .16* .32** −.07 −.36** .31**
9. Perceived Cognitive Learning 3.04 0.86 .84 −.25** −.21* .44** .31** −.30** −.37** .26* .22*
10. Affective Learning 3.64 1.23 .91 −.40** −.42** .42** .37** −.28** −.52** .22* .30** .63**
*p < .05; **p < .001.
9
transgression (e.g., “This event was one of the most negative things that could happen
in my relationship with my instructor,” “This is one of the worst things my instructor
could have said or done to me”).
Instructor blameworthiness
The Relationship Attribution Measure (RAM; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992) was used
to operationalize instructor blameworthiness. The RAM is a 6-item measure that asks
participants to rate the extent to which the transgression was committed intentionally
(e.g., “My instructor committed this relational transgression on purpose rather than
unintentionally”) and due to causes internal to the transgressor (e.g., “My instructor’s
misbehavior was motivated by selfish rather than unselfish reasons”).
Instructor nonverbal immediacy

Instructor nonverbal immediacy was measured using the Nonverbal Immediacy
Behavior Scale (Richmond et al., 1987), a 14-item scale that asks respondents to
indicate the frequency with which their instructor engages in nonverbal immediacy
behaviors (e.g., “My instructor sits behind a desk when teaching,” “My instructor
moves around the classroom when teaching”). Responses were solicited on a Likert
scale ranging from never (1) to very often (7).
Given previous inconsistencies regarding the unidimensionality of the NIM (e.g.,
Hess et al., 2001), a factor analysis was performed. Given the large number of
interitem correlations (<.30) for four items,1 these were removed prior to the analysis
(Field, 2009). The remaining 10 items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) using principal axis factoring and promax rotation. Promax is a form of
oblique rotation in which factors are not assumed to be independent, and was chosen
based on the theoretical relationship among immediacy behaviors (Andersen, 1979;
Richmond et al., 1987). Examination of the scree plot indicated two factors present in
the data. Each factor achieved a minimum Eigenvalue of 1.0, accounted for at least
5% of the variance, and retained at least three items (Hatcher, 1994). Table 2 contains
Table 2 Structure Matrix for Immediacy Items Subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis
with Promax Rotation
Immediacy Items Factor 1 Factor 2
Uses a variety of vocal expressions when talking to the class .74 .48
Has a very relaxed body position when talking to the class .74 .24
Has a very tense body position when talking to the classa .68 .34
Uses monotone/dull voice when talking to the classa .65 .55
Gestures when talking to the class .59 .47
Smiles at the class as a whole, not just individual students .59 .32
Looks at the class when talking .48 .38
Sits behind desk when teachinga .30 .72
Moves around the classroom when teaching .64 .71
Stands behind podium or desk when teachinga .33 .63
Eigenvalue 3.53 2.59
Variance 37.66 8.23
a
Reverse-coded items.
factor loadings, eigenvalues, and variance accounted for. Items theoretically assumed
to enhance immediacy (i.e., positively worded items) loaded positively on the first
factor and negatively on the second factor, while behaviors theoretically assumed to
mitigate immediacy (i.e., reverse-coded items) loaded negatively on the first factor
and positively on the second factor. A moderate correlation between factors (r = .56)
indicates that they are not independent, which explains why some items had
relatively strong loadings across factors. Given the interdependence of these factors
and the crossloading of items, all 10 items were included together in subsequent
analyses.
Forgiveness
A modified version of The Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Invent-

ory (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002) was used to
operationalize forgiveness. The TRIM is a 19-item measure that asks participants to
report their feelings about their relationship with a transgressor across three
dimensions: benevolence (e.g., “Although my instructor hurt me, I put the hurt aside
so we can resume our relationship”), motivation to avoid (e.g., “I avoid my instructor
as much as possible”), and motivation to retaliate (e.g., “I want to see my instructor
hurt and miserable”). The version used in this study was previously modified for use
in the instructor–student relationship (see Vallade & Myers, 2014) and items reflect
the nature of this particular relationship for enhanced face validity.
Nonverbal responsiveness
Students’ reports of their nonverbal responsiveness in class were measured using
Mottet’s (2000) responsiveness scale. This semantic differential scale consists of four
bi-polar adjectives measured on a 7-point scale: responsive/unresponsive, alert/not
alert, attentive/inattentive, and expressive/nonexpressive.
Out-of-class communication
Students’ OCC was measured using the Out of Class Interaction Scale (OCIS; Knapp
& Martin, 2002). The OCIS is a nine-item scale asking participants to report the
frequency of their out of class interactions with an instructor (e.g., “I often talk to my
instructor during his/her office hours,” “If I see my instructor on campus, I often talk
to him/her”).
Cognitive learning
The Cognitive Learning Measure (Frisby & Martin, 2010) was used to measure
perceptions of cognitive learning in this study. This 10-item instrument is used to
assess respondents’ acquisition (e.g., “My knowledge on this class topic has increased
since the beginning of this class”), retention (e.g., “I can clearly recall information
from this class”), and application (e.g., “I have learned information that I can apply”)
related to course content (Frisby, Mansson, & Kaufmann, 2014).
Affective learning
Affective learning was assessed using Andersen’s (1979), 7-point affective learning
scales. Four semantic differential four-item measures assessed students’ affect toward
class content (e.g., bad/good, valuable/worthless), students’ likelihood of taking future
courses with similar content (e.g., unlikely/likely, possible/impossible), students’ affect
toward the instructor (e.g., bad/good, valuable/worthless), and students’ likelihood of
taking future courses with the instructor (e.g., unlikely/likely, possible/impossible).
Results
Table 1 presents a correlation matrix of all variables examined in this study.
Hypothesis One
Following Dawson’s (2014) recommendation, all independent and moderator
variables were standardized before conducting regression analyses for hypothesis
one, which predicted that instructors’ perceived nonverbal immediacy would interact
with perceptions of instructor misbehavior to predict students’ forgiveness. Hier-
archical regressions were conducted with instructors’ nonverbal immediacy entered
in the first block, perceptions of misbehavior severity or instructor blameworthiness
entered in the second block, the interaction term entered in the third block, and
forgiveness components entered as the outcome variables.
Results of hierarchical regressions examining the interaction of instructors’
immediacy and perceptions of misbehavior severity indicated significant models for
benevolence, F (3, 143) = 12.25, p < .001, motivation to retaliate, F (3, 145) = 6.12, p =
.001, and motivation to avoid, F (3, 145) = 9.80, p < .001. A closer examination of the
beta weights in each model indicated that immediacy was the only significant,
positive predictor of benevolence, and immediacy negatively predicted, while severity
positively predicted both motivation to retaliate and motivation to avoid, but the
interactions were not significant (see Table 3).
Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Results Predicting Students’ Forgiveness from Per-

ceived Instructor Immediacy and Misbehavior Severity
Benevolence Motivation to retaliate Motivation to avoid
Variable R 2
β t R 2
β t R2 β t
Step 1 .19 .04 .11

Instructor immediacy .44 5.87** −.21 −2.61* −.34 −4.28**
Step 2 .20 .10 .16
Instructor blameworthiness −.11 −1.48 .25 3.17* .24 3.07*
Step 3 .19 .10 .15
Instructor blameworthiness −.11 −1.43 .27 3.29** .23 2.91*
Immediacy x blameworthiness −.02 −2.34 −.08 −1.03 .06 .79
*p < .05; **p < .001.

Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Results Predicting Students’ Benevolence from
Perceived Instructor Immediacy and Instructor Blameworthiness
Benevolence Motivation to retaliate Motivation to avoid
Variable R2 β t R2 β t R2 β t
Step 1 .19 .04 .10

Instructor Immediacy .44 5.90** −.21 −2.54* −.33 −4.21**
Step 2 .25 .14 .23
Instructor immediacy .39 5.35** −.15 −1.84 −.26 −3.52**
Instructor blameworthiness −.27 −3.61** .33 4.19** .36 4.90**
Step 3 .27 .13 .24
Instructor immediacy .39 5.39** −.15 −1.84 −.26 −3.54**
Instructor blameworthiness −.27 −3.69** .33 4.17** .37 4.98**
Immediacy x blameworthiness −.14 −1.94 −.04 −.48 .14 1.93
*p < .05; **p < .001.
Results of a second series of hierarchical regressions examining the interaction of

instructors’ immediacy and perceptions of instructor blameworthiness indicated
significant models for benevolence, F (3, 143) = 18.52, p < .001, motivation to
retaliate, F (3, 145) = 8.28, p < .001, and motivation to avoid, F (3, 145) = 16.39, p <
.001. A closer examination of the beta weights for benevolence revealed that
immediacy positively predicted and blameworthiness negatively predicted benevol-
ence, with an interaction approaching significance, p = .054 (see Table 4). A closer
examination of the beta weights for motivation to retaliate indicated that blamewor-
thiness was the only significant and positive predictor of motivation to retaliate (see
Table 4). A closer examination of the beta weights for motivation to avoid indicated
that immediacy negatively predicted and blameworthiness positively predicted
motivation to avoid, with an interaction approaching significance, p = .056 (see
Table 4). Overall, hypothesis one was not supported.
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis two predicted that perceptions of misbehavior severity and instructor
blameworthiness would be negatively associated with students’ nonverbal respon-
siveness and OCC. This hypothesis was partially supported. Results of one-tailed
Pearson correlations indicated that misbehavior severity was not significantly
associated with either nonverbal responsiveness or OCC (see Table 1). Instructor
blameworthiness was also not significantly associated with responsiveness, though
blameworthiness was marginally, but significantly, associated with OCC (r = − .16,
p < .05).
Hypothesis Three
Hypothesis three predicted that students’ benevolence would be positively associated
with, and motivations to retaliate and avoid would be negatively associated with,
students’ nonverbal responsiveness and OCC. This hypothesis was partially
supported (see Table 1). Results of one-tailed Pearson correlations indicated that
benevolence was positively associated with both responsiveness and OCC. Motivation
to retaliate was negatively associated with nonverbal responsiveness, but was not
significantly associated with OCC. Finally, motivation to avoid was significantly and
negatively associated with both nonverbal responsiveness and OCC.
Hypothesis Four
Hypothesis four predicted that misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness
would be negatively associated with students’ perceived cognitive and affective
learning. This hypothesis was supported. Results of one-tailed Pearson correlations
indicated that misbehavior severity was significantly and negatively associated with
perceptions of cognitive learning and affective learning. Instructor blameworthiness

was also negatively associated with both perceived cognitive learning and affective
learning (see Table 1).
Research Question and Hypothesis Five

Path analyses using maximum likelihood estimation (Iacobucci, 2010) were
conducted to test research question one and hypothesis five. Path models were
considered acceptable when the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio did not exceed
3.0 (e.g., Iacobucci, 2010), baseline comparison fit statistics (e.g., CFI, IFI) achieved
levels of .90 or higher (e.g., Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004) and RMSEA values did not
exceed .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The χ2/df ratio was chosen because scholars
have noted that the chi-square value alone is an unreliable indicator of model fit (e.g.,
Kenny & McCoach, 2003).
Research question one queried whether forgiveness components mediate the
relationship between misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness, respect-
ively, and students’ communicative behaviors.2 Results of a path analysis testing
benevolence as a mediator between instructor blameworthiness and students’ OCC
indicated a strong model fit, χ2/df = .50, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.02, RMSEA = .00 (see
Figure 1). In order to further and more directly test for mediation, a Sobel test was
conducted using regression weights for instructor blameworthiness, benevolence, and
students’ OCC.3 Results of the Sobel test were significant, z′ = −2.72, p < .01,
indicating significant mediation (Sobel, 1982). Results of a second path analysis
testing motivation to retaliate as a mediator between perceptions of instructor
blameworthiness and students’ OCC indicated poor model fit, χ2/df = 3.20, CFI = .88,
IFI = .90, RMSEA = .12. Results of a third path analysis testing motivation to avoid as
–.34** .32**
Instructor Benevolence OCC
Blameworthiness
Figure 1 Path analysis with benevolence as a mediator between perceived instructor

blameworthiness and students’ OCC. *p < .05; **p < .001.
.42** –.36**
Instructor Motivation to OCC
Blameworthiness Avoid
Figure 2 Path analysis with motivation to avoid as a mediator between perceived

instructor blameworthiness and students’ OCC. *p < .05; **p < .001.
a mediator between perceptions of instructor blameworthiness and students’ OCC

indicated strong model fit, χ2/df = .01, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.02, RMSEA = .00 (see
Figure 2). Sobel test results indicated significant mediation, z′ = −3.31, p < .001
(Sobel, 1982). Thus, benevolence and motivation to avoid appear to mediate the
relationship between instructor blameworthiness and students’ OCC. In other words,

perceptions of instructor blameworthiness appear to influence students’ OCC
through these dimensions of forgiveness. For example, if an instructor misbehavior
is perceived as particularly blameworthy, this negatively predicts feelings of
benevolence toward, and positively predicts motivation to avoid an instructor, which
in turn increases or reduces students’ likelihood of engaging in OCC.
Hypothesis five predicted that forgiveness components mediate the relationship
between misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness, respectively, and
students’ perceptions of cognitive and affective learning. This hypothesis was partially
supported. Path analyses indicated poor model fit for all mediators between
misbehavior severity and perceived cognitive learning, including benevolence (χ2/df
= 6.36, CFI = .71, IFI = .77, RMSEA = .19), motivation to retaliate (χ2/df = 4.85, CFI
= .84, IFI = .87, RMSEA = .16), and motivation to avoid (χ2/df = 14.84, CFI = .79, IFI
= .81, RMSEA = .31). Path analyses also indicated poor model fit for all mediators
between instructor blameworthiness and affective learning, including benevolence
(χ2/df = 16.08, CFI = .69, IFI = .72, RMSEA = .32), motivation to retaliate (χ2/df =
17.96, CFI = .62, IFI = .66, RMSEA = .34), and motivation to avoid (χ2/df = 3.95, CFI
= .90, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .14), contrary to the hypothesis.
Results of a path analysis testing benevolence as a mediator between perceptions of
instructor blameworthiness and students’ perceived cognitive learning indicated
strong model fit, χ2/df = 1.82, CFI = .97, IFI = .98, RMSEA = .07 (see Figure 3).
Results of a Sobel test were also significant, z′ = −2.53, p = .01. Results of a second
path analysis testing motivation to retaliate as the mediator also indicated a strong
model fit, χ2/df = 1.67, CFI = .98, IFI = .98, RMSEA = .07 (see Figure 4). An
additional Sobel test indicated significant mediation, z′ = −2.55, p = .01. Results of a
third path analysis testing motivation to avoid as the mediator also indicated a strong
–.34** .31**
Instructor Perceived
Blameworthiness Benevolence Cognitive
Learning
Figure 3 Path analysis with benevolence as a mediator between perceived instructor

blameworthiness and students’ perceived cognitive learning. *p < .05; **p < .001.
.36** –.30**
Instructor Motivation to Perceived
Blameworthiness Retaliate Cognitive
Learning
Figure 4 Path Analysis with motivation to retaliate as a mediator between perceived

instructor blameworthiness and students’ perceived cognitive learning. *p < .05; **p < .001.
.42** –.37**
Instructor Motivation to Perceived
Blameworthiness Avoid Cognitive
Learning
Figure 5 Path analysis with motivation to avoid as a mediator between perceived

instructor blameworthiness and students’ perceived cognitive learning. *p < .05; **p < .001.
model fit, χ2/df = .56, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.01, RMSEA = .00 (see Figure 5), and results
of a Sobel test indicated significant mediation, z′ = −3.22, p = .001.
Path analyses indicated poor model fit for all mediators between misbehavior
severity and affective learning, including benevolence (χ2/df = 21.30, CFI = .50, IFI =
.55, RMSEA = .37), motivation to retaliate (χ2/df = 18.81, CFI = .51, IFI = .57,
RMSEA = .35), and motivation to avoid (χ2/df = 14.84, CFI = .79, IFI = .81, RMSEA
= .31). Results also indicated a poor fit for all mediators between instructor
blameworthiness and affective learning, including benevolence (χ2/df = 16.08, CFI =
.69, IFI = .72, RMSEA = .32), motivation to retaliate (χ2/df = 17.96, CFI = .62, IFI =
.66, RMSEA = .34), and motivation to avoid (χ2/df = 8.19, CFI = .91, IFI = .91,
RMSEA = .22). Thus, forgiveness components appear to act as mediators between
students’ perceptions of instructor blameworthiness and their OCC and perceived
cognitive learning. Perceptions of instructor blameworthiness appear to influence
students’ perceived cognitive learning through the dimensions of forgiveness. For
example, if an instructor misbehavior is perceived as blameworthy, this negatively
predicts feelings of benevolence toward, and positively predicts motivation to avoid or
retaliate against an instructor; these motivations and affect in turn reduce students’
perceptions of cognitive learning. Forgiveness does not appear to mediate associations
between perceived misbehavior severity and communicative or learning outcomes,
and does not act as a mediator for any affective learning outcomes.
Discussion
Using Attribution Theory as a guiding framework, the purpose of this study was to
explore the role of perceived instructor nonverbal immediacy and student forgiveness
in impacting student nonverbal responsiveness, OCC, and perceived learning
following instructor misbehavior. Although perceptions of instructors’ nonverbal
immediacy were significantly associated with each dimension of forgiveness following
a misbehavior in the classroom, perceived nonverbal immediacy did not interact with
perceptions of misbehavior severity or instructor blameworthiness to impact the
likelihood of forgiveness. Thus, perceptions of immediacy were only minimally
associated with blameworthiness and misbehavior severity. These results suggest that
nonverbal immediacy may not be the protective buffer scholars imagined when it
comes to student perceptions of misbehavior (e.g., Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998); that
is, students may be more likely to forgive nonverbally immediate instructors, but this
forgiveness is not a result of immediacy’s impact on perceptions of misbehavior itself.
Previous research has indicated that some misbehaviors, particularly those considered
offensive, are considered especially severe in the college classroom (Vallade & Myers,
2014). Present results suggest that these misbehaviors may maintain their severity and
blameworthiness independent of the instructor committing them; in other words,
when instructors engage in offensive or other severe misbehaviors, even perceptions
of their nonverbal immediacy may not mitigate students’ perceptions. In considering

these findings in a larger picture with Attribution Theory, these results complement
those of Kelsey et al. (2004), who found that students made internal attributions for
instructor misbehavior, regardless of instructor immediacy. It is also possible that
more immediate instructors are less likely to commit especially severe or blamewor-
thy misbehaviors. In order to fully understand these findings, it is also important to
note that forgiveness is a complex construct, which is often viewed by ethicists as an
act with moral implications. Thus, forgiveness may be difficult to both grant and
accept, especially in the classroom context where power differentials exist. As noted,
forgiveness has been conceptualized in various ways, including as a communicative
process (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002; Waldron & Kelley, 2005) and as an intrapersonal
act (McCullough et al., 1998) that can take a variety of forms over an extended period
of time. However, a student’s authentic forgiveness may necessitate an instructor’s
recommitment to relational or community values, a complex process that may take
extensive time and thought. Nevertheless, the current investigation operationalized
forgiveness broadly (i.e., using both intrapersonal and communicative items) to
provide an initial understanding of this complex process in the classroom. Future
research is needed to understand the depth of the forgiveness process and additional
processes that may be involved. It may be that the existing quality of the student–
teacher relationship facilitates or hinders forgiveness, and future research should
further explore the role of the instructor–student relationship prior to misbehavior
(aside from just immediacy).
This study also uncovered differences in findings between misbehavior severity and
instructor blameworthiness. Specifically, results differ slightly from those found by
Vallade and colleagues (Vallade et al., in press; Vallade & Myers, 2014), which
suggested that both blame and severity predicted student forgiveness. The current
study indicated that blame may carry more weight than severity when making
decisions to forgive an instructor misbehavior, which may then impact student
communicative behaviors and perceived learning. In examining these findings
through an Attribution Theory lens, it may be that students will forgive a severe
instructor misbehavior if it is perceived as being outside of the instructor’s control
(i.e., external rather than internal). This reasoning is in line with interpersonal
forgiveness literature, which suggests that forgiveness is often based on perceptions of
the person who has transgressed (Finkel et al., 2002), and Attribution Theory, which
emphasizes that internal attributions are often perceived more negatively (Heider,
1958; Weiner, 1986).
Consistent with previous research, this forgiveness, in turn, may encourage more
prosocial communicative responses (e.g., Morse & Metts, 2011) and learning
outcomes (Vallade et al., in press). Specifically, results indicated that a student is
more likely to have increased feelings of benevolence, and less likely to be motivated
to avoid or retaliate against an instructor following a misbehavior if that instructor is
perceived as being nonverbally immediate. Thus, although immediacy may not
impact perceptions of severity and blameworthiness, it does reduce students’
likelihood of being motivated to avoid or retaliate against an instructor. Recall that
LaBelle and Martin (2014) found that students attributed disagreements to

instructors’ internal characteristics, which positively related to students’ expressive,
rhetorical, and vengeful dissent. Applying these findings to the current study, it may
be that students are more likely to handle misbehaviors constructively (e.g., rhetorical
dissent) instead of destructively (e.g., vengeful dissent) if the instructor is perceived as
being nonverbally immediate before the misbehavior occurs. This finding supports
the extensive body of literature endorsing the use of nonverbal immediacy in the
classroom. Nonverbally immediate instructors may foster healthier relationships with
their students, with correspondingly higher levels of openness and approachability
that encourage students to deal constructively with an occasional misbehavior.
Additionally, results of the present investigation indicated that forgiveness
components mediated the relationships between perceptions of instructor blamewor-
thiness with students’ OCC. Thus, if students forgive instructor misbehavior, even
when internally attributed, they are more likely to engage in informal communication
with the instructor outside of scheduled class time. Forgiveness involves decreased
motivation to avoid a transgressor (Finkel et al., 2002); it is fitting that if a student
forgives instructor misbehavior, they are more likely to engage in OCC because they
are no longer working to avoid the instructor. It may also be that OCC is a form of
reconciliation within the spectrum of forgiveness; because forgiveness may be
demonstrated in different ways, OCC may be an indirect form of reconciliation in
this relationship, characterized and complicated by differences in power and status.
Thus, the current study extends previous findings regarding the effects of forgiveness
on students’ communicative behaviors (Vallade et al., in press), which may help
enhance students’ classroom experience and learning.
In addition to enhancing students’ OCC, the current study examined forgiveness
components as a mediator between perceptions of instructor misbehavior and
perceived student learning, with increased forgiveness predicting increased percep-
tions of cognitive learning. This study partially validated Vallade et al.’s (in press)
findings, confirming that students’ forgiveness mediates the relationship between
perceptions of instructor blameworthiness and students’ perceptions of cognitive
learning. Current results also extended Vallade et al.’s findings by differentiating
relationships between perceived cognitive and affective learning as outcomes
associated with forgiveness. Whereas Vallade et al. (in press) combined both
cognitive and affective measures into one composite learning outcome, the present
results suggest that forgiveness plays a more central role with regard to students’
perceived cognitive learning than their affective learning. Results also suggest that
instructor blameworthiness is more salient to students’ perceived cognitive learning
than misbehavior severity, as forgiveness did not mediate the relationships between
misbehavior severity and any learning outcomes. The significant mediation found
here suggests that forgiveness of instructor misbehavior is necessary for subsequent
perceived cognitive learning to take place, particularly following a blameworthy
misbehavior. This is not surprising when considering the overwhelming tendency for
students to try to avoid their instructors when they are unable to forgive them. This
avoidance may take many forms, including decreased attendance, lack of in-class
participation, and refusal to seek help from an instructor in order to clarify

misunderstandings or get answers to questions about course content or assignment
requirements. Previous research has found that, following instructor misbehaviors,
students engage in lower levels of all of these forms of communication (e.g., Myers,
Edwards, Wahl, & Martin, 2007; Rocca, 2004). Perhaps, when misbehavior cannot be
avoided, facilitating forgiveness may mitigate the negative impact misbehaviors have
on students’ communication and subsequent learning. Given the importance of
student learning, aiding students in letting go of their negative affect and motivations
regarding an instructor may ultimately enhance their positive outcomes and
classroom experience.
Limitations and Future Directions

The results of this study should be interpreted with an understanding of its
limitations. Perhaps most significant, data were contingent upon students’ recall of
instructor misbehaviors. On average, students reported on incidents that took place
123 days ago (SD = 213.51). Thus, perceptions of severity, blame, and dimensions of
forgiveness may have changed over time (McCullough et al., 2003). However, this was
done in an effort to replicate the research design used effectively in interpersonal
transgression and forgiveness research (McCullough et al., 1998; Roloff et al., 2001)
and instructor misbehavior research (Vallade et al., in press; Vallade & Myers, 2014).
Future research would benefit from a longitudinal design, in order to ascertain how
premisbehavior perceptions of instructors and instructor–student relationship quality
may influence postmisbehavior forgiveness and classroom outcomes. The longitud-
inal time ordering of these perceptions and events will also strengthen and clarify any
mediating relationships that may exist. From the current research design and results,
it is not possible to discern whether students who are more prone to engaging in
OCC with instructors are also generally more forgiving. It is possible that assessing
these communicative behaviors prior to the occurrence of a misbehavior may be an
additional indicator of instructor–student relationship quality and student disposi-
tion, which may be a predictor, as opposed to an outcome, of forgiveness.
An additional limitation concerns the questionable dimensionality (e.g., Hess et al.,
2001) and relevance of the Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (Richmond et al., 1987). It
is possible that this list of low inference behaviors more accurately represents other
constructs, such as effective or preferable teacher behaviors, but does not necessarily
assess the psychological closeness students may or may not feel with an instructor.
Additionally, some of these behaviors may not be relevant in today’s classroom
environments (e.g., touching students), while other relevant behaviors may be ignored
(e.g., use of technology). Future research should reassess the use of this measure to
test whether it is truly measuring nonverbal immediacy.
Finally, the current investigation examined students’ perceived cognitive learning,
rather than actual learning. Although student perceptions of learning are important,
and most instructional communication literature is focused on perceptions of
learning, future research should examine actual learning, supported with behavioral
data. This may be done by evaluating in-class test scores, standardized test scores,
GPA, etc.
Overall, results support past literature on instructor misbehavior and forgiveness
(Vallade et al., in press; Vallade & Myers, 2014), and provide evidence to support the
importance of student forgiveness following misbehavior. Forgiveness of instructor
misbehavior may lead to positive student communicative responses and fewer
attempts to avoid an instructor, which may ultimately contribute to the goal of any
college classroom: enhanced student learning.
Notes
[1] “Touches students in the class,” “Sits on a desk or in a chair when teaching,” “Looks at board
or notes when talking to the class,” and “Smiles at individual students in the class” were
removed before conducting factor analysis.
[2] Given the lack of significant relationships between misbehavior severity and nonverbal
responsiveness and OCC, as well as between instructor blameworthiness and nonverbal
responsiveness, mediation analyses were not possible for these associations (Baron &
Kenny, 1986).
[3] Contact the first author for results of regression analyses for all tests of mediation.
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of instructor
humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication Education, 52, 122.
doi:10.1080/0363452032000085090
Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006a). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to
hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19, 45–56. doi:10.1080/08934210600586357
Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006b). Relational quality and communicative responses
following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 943–963. doi:10.1177/0265407506070476
Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on
teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55, 63–72. doi:10.1080/
03634520500343400
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic relationships:
A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 19–44.
Booth-Butterfield, M. (1989). The interpretation of classroom performance feedback: An attribu-
tional approach. Communication Education, 38, 119–131. doi:10.1080/03634528909378745
Brandau-Brown, F. E., & Ragsdale, J. D. (2008). Personal, moral, and structural commitment and
the repair of marital relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 68–83. doi:10.1080/
10417940701815659
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2003). When partners falter: Repair after a transgression. In D. J. Canary
& M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational,
contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 185–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its
situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914. doi:10.1037/
a0019993
Ferrara, M. H., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Can’t live with them or can’t live without them?: The effects
of betrayal on relational outcomes in college dating relationships. Communication Quarterly,
57, 187–204. doi:10.1080/01463370902881734
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fincham, F. D. (2000). The kiss of the porcupines: From attributing responsibility to forgiving.
Personal Relationships, 7, 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1475–6811.2000.tb00001.x
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological
aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239–251. doi:10.1111/
1475-6811.00016
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationships
attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457–468. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.62.3.457
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close
relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 956–974. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956
Frisby, B. N., Mansson, D. H., & Kaufmann, R. (2014). The Cognitive Learning Measure: A three-study
examination of validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 163–176. doi:10.1080/
19312458.2014.903389
Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor–student and student–student rapport in the
classroom. Communication Education, 59, 146–164. doi:10.1080/03634520903564362
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher–student relationship as an interpersonal
relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi:10.1080/03634520009379209
Fusani, D. S. (1994). “Extra-class” communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and
satisfaction in student–faculty interaction outside of the classroom. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 22, 232–255. doi:10.1080/00909889409365400
Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Instructional dissent in the college classroom. Communication Education,
60, 296–313. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.537756
Goodboy, A. K., & Bolkan, S. (2009). College teacher misbehaviors: Direct and indirect effects on
student communication behavior and traditional learning outcomes. Western Journal of
Communication, 73, 204–219. doi:10.1080/10570310902856089
Goodboy, A. K., Myers, S. A., & Bolkan, S. (2010). Student motives for communicating with
instructors as a function of perceived instructor misbehaviors. Communication Research
Reports, 27, 11–19. doi:10.1080/08824090903526604
Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2010). Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating
relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 27, 801–823. doi:10.1177/0265407510373258
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation
modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Hess, J. A., Smythe, M. J., & Communication 451. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to
student cognitive learning? Communication Studies, 52, 197–219. doi:10.1080/1051097010
9388554
Hooker, J., & Denker, K. (2013). The Learning Loss Scale as an assessment tool: An empirical
examination of convergent validity with performative measures. Communication Teacher, 28,

130–143. doi:10.1080/17404622.2013.865765
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student–faculty out-of-class commun-
ication to instructor immediacy and trust to student motivation. Communication Education,
48, 41–47. doi:10.1080/03634529909379151
Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in dating and
married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships,
11, 373–393. doi:10.1111/j.1475–6811.2004.00088.x
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What
students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309–324.
doi:10.0180/01463379109369808
Kelsey, D. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Allen, T. H., & Ritter, K. J. (2004). College students’ attributions
of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53, 40–55. doi:10.0363452032000135760
Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, B. (2003). Effects of the number of variables on measures of fit in
structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10,
333–351. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
Knapp, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2002, April). Out-of-class communication: The development and
testing of a measure. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Communication
Association, New York City, NY.
LaBelle, S. S., & Martin, M. M. (2014). Attribution Theory in the college classroom: Examining the
Relationship of student attributions and instructional dissent. Communication Research
Reports, 31, 110–116. doi:10.1080/08824096.2013.846257
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-
testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu
and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. doi:10.1207/
s15328007sem1103_2
McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The
temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557. doi:10/1037/0022-3514.84.3.540
McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-related motivational dispositions:
Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the big five. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556–1573. doi:10.1177/014616702237583
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L.
(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and
measurement. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.75.6.1586
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.73.2.321
McPherson, M. B., & Young, S. L. (2004). What students think when instructors get upset:
Fundamental attribution error and student-generated reasons for instructor anger. Com-
munication Quarterly, 52, 357–369. doi:10.1080/01463370409370206
Merolla, A. J. (2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships.
Communication Studies, 59, 114–131. doi:10.1080/10510970802062428
Merolla, A. J., & Koermer, C. (2002, November). “Extra-class” communication as cultural
performance: An exploratory investigation. Paper presented at the meeting of the National
Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Merolla, A. J., & Zhang, S. (2011). In the wake of transgressions: Examining forgiveness
communication in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, 18, 79–95. doi:10.1111/
j.1475–6811.2010.01323.x
Metts, S. (1994). Relational transgressions. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and
relational maintenance (pp. 217–239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions: Hurt, anger, and
sometimes forgiveness. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of
interpersonal communication (pp. 243–274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morse, C. R., & Metts, S. (2011). Situational and communicative predictors of forgiveness following
a relational transgression. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 239–258. doi:10.1080/
10570314.2011.571652
Mottet, T. P. (2000). Interactive television instructors’ perceptions of students’ nonverbal
responsiveness and their influence on distance teaching. Communication Education, 49,
146–164. doi:10.1080/03634520009379202
Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Foundations of instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet,
V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication:
Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 3–32). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Myers, S. A. (2010). Instructional communication: The emergence of a field. In D. L. Fassett & J. T.
Warren (Eds.), SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 149–159). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived
instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication
Education, 56, 495–508. doi:10.1080/03634520701466398
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected
immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 10 (pp. 574–590). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rocca, K. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal
aggression. Communication Education, 53, 185–195. doi:10.10/03634520410001682447
Rocca, K. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1999). The interrelationship of student ratings of instructors’
immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Communication
Education, 48, 308–316. doi:10.1080/03634529909379181
Roloff, M. E., Soule, K. P., & Carey, C. M. (2001). Reasons for remaining in a relationship and
responses to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 362–385.
doi:10.1177/0265407501183004
Santilli, V., Miller, A. N., & Katt, J. (2011). A comparison of the relationship between instructor
nonverbal immediacy and teacher credibility in Brazilian and U.S. classrooms. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 28, 266–274. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.588583
Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function of
students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Commun-
ication Education, 55, 1–20. doi:10.1080/03634520500343335
Semlak, J. L., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Through the years: An examination of instructor age and
misbehavior on perceived teacher credibility. Communication Research Reports, 25, 76–85.
doi:10.1080/088240907018311867
Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: An
examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college
classroom. Communication Education, 59, 165–184. doi:10.1080/03634520903390867
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive
learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169–191.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S.
Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy
and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11, 107–115. doi:10.1080/
08824099409359946
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1996). Teacher nonimmediacy and misbehavior: Unintentional
negative communication. Communication Research Reports, 13, 198–204. doi:10.1080/
08824099609362087
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on
teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348–358. doi:10.1080/03634529809379141
Vallade, J. I., Martin, M. M., & Vela, L. E. (in press). An investigation of students’ forgiveness,
instructional dissent, and learning in the college classroom. Western Journal of Communication.
Vallade, J. I., & Myers, S. A. (2014). Student forgiveness in the college classroom: Perceived
instructor misbehaviors as relational transgressions. Communication Quarterly, 62, 342–356.
doi:10.1080/01463373.2014.911767
Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational
transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723–742.
Wanzer, M. B., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Teacher socio-communicative style as a correlate of
student affect toward teacher and course material. Communication Education, 47, 43–52.
doi:10.1080/03634529809379109
Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Zhang, Q. (2007). Teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivators in the college classrooms:
A cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Commun-
ication Education, 56, 209–227. doi:10.1080/03634520601110104

Student Communicative Outcome

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Communicative Outcome

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]

On: 19 August 2015, At: 10:01

Instructor Misbehavior and

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038728

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Instructor Misbehavior and Forgiveness:

Jessalyn I. Vallade & Colleen M. Malachowski

Keywords: Instructor Misbehavior; Student Nonverbal Responsiveness; Instructor

ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) © 2015 National Communication Association

Misbehavior and the Instructor–Student Relationship

sonal (i.e., benevolence) and communicative (i.e., motivation to avoid/retaliate)

classroom, where students report a lower likelihood of forgiveness when an instructor

Instructor Nonverbal Immediacy

H1: Instructors’ perceived nonverbal immediacy interacts with perceptions of instructor

Students’ Communicative Responses to Instructor Misbehavior

H2: Perceptions of misbehavior severity and instructor blameworthiness are negatively

RQ1: Do benevolence, motivation to retaliate, and motivation to avoid mediate the

Perceptions of Student Learning Following Instructor Misbehavior

H5: Benevolence, motivation to retaliate, and motivation to avoid mediate the

Procedures and Instrumentation

Instructor misbehavior severity

Instructor nonverbal immediacy

A modified version of The Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Invent-

Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Results Predicting Students’ Forgiveness from Per-

Step 1 .19 .04 .11

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Step 1 .19 .04 .10

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Results of a second series of hierarchical regressions examining the interaction of

perceptions of cognitive learning and affective learning. Instructor blameworthiness

Research Question and Hypothesis Five

Figure 1 Path analysis with benevolence as a mediator between perceived instructor

Figure 2 Path analysis with motivation to avoid as a mediator between perceived

a mediator between perceptions of instructor blameworthiness and students’ OCC

relationship between instructor blameworthiness and students’ OCC. In other words,

Figure 3 Path analysis with benevolence as a mediator between perceived instructor

Figure 4 Path Analysis with motivation to retaliate as a mediator between perceived

Figure 5 Path analysis with motivation to avoid as a mediator between perceived

of their nonverbal immediacy may not mitigate students’ perceptions. In considering

LaBelle and Martin (2014) found that students attributed disagreements to

participation, and refusal to seek help from an instructor in order to clarify

Limitations and Future Directions

Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

examination of convergent validity with performative measures. Communication Teacher, 28,

You might also like