This article was downloaded by: [Ann Neville Miller]On: 27 March 2014, At: 07:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

The Effect of Face Threat Mitigationon Instructor Credibility and StudentMotivation in the Absence of InstructorNonverbal ImmediacyLaura Trad, James Katt & Ann Neville MillerPublished online: 25 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Laura Trad, James Katt & Ann Neville Miller (2014) The Effect of Face ThreatMitigation on Instructor Credibility and Student Motivation in the Absence of Instructor NonverbalImmediacy, Communication Education, 63:2, 136-148, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2014.889319

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.889319

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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

The Effect of Face Threat Mitigation onInstructor Credibility and StudentMotivation in the Absence of InstructorNonverbal ImmediacyLaura Trad, James Katt & Ann Neville Miller

Instructor nonverbal immediacy has been associated with a range of positive studentoutcomes, but it is difficult to convey in an online environment. We investigatedwhether the text-based variable of face threat mitigation (FTM) alone—without thevisual cues of nonverbally immediate behaviors—could significantly raise students’motivation and perceptions of instructor credibility. Two hundred seventeen students ina large introductory communication class were randomly assigned to read a high orlow-FTM hypothetical scenario and then fill scales assessing their motivation andperceptions of instructor credibility. Students in the high-FTM condition rated theinstructor in the scenario as more competent, trustworthy, and caring, and indicatedhigher state motivation.

Keywords: Face Threat Mitigation; Nonverbal Immediacy; Online Learning; InstructorCredibility

The relationship between high instructor nonverbal immediacy (NVI) and positivestudent outcomes is among the most strongly supported findings in instructionalcommunication research (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). When students see theirinstructors as nonverbally immediate—that is, when they reduce the psychologicaldistance between themselves and their students by eye contact, smiling, direct bodyorientation, and similar behaviors (Mottet & Richmond, 1998; Witt & Wheeless,2001)— students tend to be more motivated (Comadena, Hunt, & Simonds, 2007), to

Laura Trad (M.A., University of Central Florida, 2013) is an adjunct instructor of communication atSeminole State College. James Katt (Ph.D., University of Central Florida, 2003) is an associateprofessor of communication at the University of Central Florida. Ann Neville Miller (Ph.D.,University of Georgia, 2005) is an associate professor of communication at the University of CentralFlorida. Correspondence to: Ann Neville Miller, Nicholson School of Communication, University ofCentral Florida, PO Box 161344, Orlando, FL 32816-1344, USA. Email: ann.miller@ucf.edu.

Communication EducationVol. 63, No. 2, April 2014, pp. 136–148

ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) © 2014 National Communication Associationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.889319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

show greater behavioral learning (Sanders & Wiseman, 1990), to report higher affectabout the class (Burroughs, 2007), and to self-report greater cognitive learning(though without final course grade gains or “learning confidence test score” increases;King & Witt, 2009). One explanation for this association appears to lie with themediating effect of instructor credibility (Schrodt, Witt, Turman, Myers, Barton, &Jernberg, 2009). When students see their instructors as nonverbally immediate,students view them as more credible, and credibility drives an instructor’s ability toinfluence students’ motivation and engagement in learning activities.

The recent move in higher education toward online courses, however, has madeconveying immediacy to students a more complicated task (Baker, 2004; Schutt,Allen, & Laumakis, 2009). Since many online classes are primarily or even entirelytext-based, nonverbally immediate behavior may not be available to instructors as ameans of connecting with students. Instructors must find ways of closing psycho-logical gaps without relying on nonverbal cues. We suggest that one alternative mightbe face threat mitigation (FTM), or using verbal and linguistic strategies to mitigatethreats to students’ face when communicating potentially threatening messages(Kerssen-Griep, Trees, & Hess, 2008). FTM has been shown to have a positiveinfluence on affective learning and perceived instructor credibility (Kerssen-Griep &Witt, 2012; Sabee & Wilson, 2005; Trees, Kerssen-Griep, & Hess, 2009; Witt &Kerssen-Griep, 2011;). Because it can be a linguistic/word-based variable, it couldconceivably be used in a computer-mediated context. Recent research (Kerssen-Griepet al., 2008; Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011) has indicated that high FTM in combinationwith high nonverbal immediacy is associated with creation of a positive learningenvironment, but that research was based on students’ responses to visual cues invideos of instructor lectures. We investigated whether the text-based variable of FTMalone—without the visual cue of nonverbally immediate behaviors—could signifi-cantly raise students’ motivation and perceptions of instructor credibility.

Literature Review

The construct of immediacy was first introduced by Mehrabian (1969), who definedit as “the extent to which communication behaviors enhance closeness to andnonverbal interaction with another” (p. 203). Mehrabian (1971) associated immedi-acy with an approach–avoidance response, in which people tend to be drawn topeople they like and avoid those they dislike. Nonverbal immediacy involves the useof behaviors such as forward body leans, direct body orientation, eye contact, smiling,and movement around the classroom. These behavior patterns increase the sensorystimulation between two persons, and decrease physical and psychological distances(Andersen, 1979; Witt & Wheeless, 2001). Nonimmediate behaviors, in contrast,communicate “avoidance, dislike, coldness, and interpersonal distance” (Kearney,Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988, p. 55), and can cause people to “avoid or move awayfrom things they dislike, evaluate negatively, or do not prefer” (Mehrabian, 1971,p. 1). Instructor NVI in U.S. classrooms has been associated with a range of positive

Face Threat Mitigation and Student Motivation 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

instructional outcomes including higher perceptions of instructor credibility (Schrodtet al., 2009) and enhanced student motivation (King & Witt, 2009).

Instructor Credibility

Immediacy is arguably the instructor behavior most frequently associated withteacher credibility (e.g., Johnson & Miller, 2002; Schrodt & Witt, 2006; Teven &Hanson, 2004). Viewed as a potent type of persuasive proof since the time ofAristotle, source credibility comprises three dimensions: competence, character, andcaring (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Nonverbal immediacy has been especially tied tothe credibility dimension of perceived caring, or goodwill (Teven, 2001; Teven &Hanson, 2004; Teven & Monte, 2008; Thweatt & McCroskey, 1998). In aneducational setting, the speaker is often the instructor, and the receivers are thestudents. A credible instructor is better able to foster understanding of the subjectmatter and instill a sense of value for the subject in the student. In other words, whenstudents view instructors as highly credible, it creates an environment in which bothcognitive and affective learning can more readily occur. Instructor credibility isassociated with greater student motivation (Frymier & Thompson, 1992) andincreased cognitive learning (Beatty & Zahn, 1990; Wheeless, 1975). Students’evaluation of instructor credibility has also been shown to impact their perceptionof the quality of the course (Banfield, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2006; Teven, 2007;Teven & McCroskey, 1997), and has been positively related to recall of coursematerial (Wheeless, 1975). Testing two models for the role of credibility in explainingthe relationship of instructor NVI and various student outcomes, Schrodt andcolleagues (2009) concluded that credibility fully mediated the relationship betweenNVI and student learning empowerment, affective learning, and cognitive learning.

Student Motivation

Motivation is defined as ‘‘ the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated andsustained’’ (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p. 5). Motivation as a communicative processshows similarities to approach and avoidance motivation. Elliot (1999) explained thatapproach motivation behavior is instigated by favorable outcomes or possibilities atone end of the spectrum, and avoidance motivation is encouraged by negativeoutcomes at the other. For educators, this means striving to give students a reason tobe motivated toward a subject by making that subject a positive, desirable event.Motivation can be broken down into two categories: trait motivation, which describesa student’s “enduring disposition” toward learning and academic achievement(Brophy, 1987) and state motivation, a student’s willingness to expend effort towarda particular goal (Katt & Condly, 2009). Although trait motivation is likely to berelatively stable, state motivation can be influenced by the behaviors of the instructor.State motivation has been identified as an important factor influencing both affectivelearning and perceived cognitive learning (Christophel, 1990; Comadena et al., 2007;Frymier, 1994), as well as promoting feelings of affiliation and of self-efficacy (Deci,Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991).

138 L. Trad et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

Student motivation has long been tied to instructor behaviors, including NVI. Earlyin the study of teacher immediacy, Christophel (1990) found that students whoperceived their instructors as nonverbally immediate reported higher levels ofmotivation. Frymier (1994) extended Christophel’s work by testing two workingmodels of the interaction between motivation, immediacy, and learning. She foundthat a model in which state motivation mediated the relationship between immediacyand affective learning was a better fit than a direct effect of immediacy on studentlearning.

FTM

It is evident that NVI, through its association with student motivation andperceptions of instructor credibility, is a tool for instructors to improve students’receptivity to learning in their face-to-face classes. However, NVI is of limited use atbest in the online course environment. Some level of nonverbal immediacy can beconveyed in videos of instructor lectures, but many instructors do not choose toincorporate a video component in their online classes. An important question forinstructors, therefore, is what communicative behaviors might perform some of thesame functions in heavily text-based online classes. One possible alternative might beFTM. Kerssen-Griep, Trees, and Hess (2008) have argued that, “competentinstruction must include the ability to mitigate face threats and negotiate mutuallyacceptable identities during key instructional interaction” (p. 314). The concept offace can be traced to Goffman (1955), who described it as “an image of self,delineated in terms of approved social attributes” (p. 213). Facework is a social dancebetween two communicants designed to ensure that both feel they have met theirsocial obligations to one another to maintain their created identities. To be successfulat maintaining these identities, interactants must be careful not to infringe on oneanother’s face needs. That is, they must engage in FTM. Although FTM can be readin nonlinguistic communication like response time, use of emoticons, and all caps, itis primarily expressed in linguistic/word-based environments. FTM can readilyaccommodate computer-mediated contexts, and it might be one element that couldbridge the psychological gap between students and teachers online.

Although it has not been nearly so widely researched as NVI, FTM has been shownto predict affective learning and perceived instructor credibility (Kerssen-Griep &Witt, 2012; Sabee & Wilson, 2005; Trees et al., 2009; Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011).FTM is especially salient for instructors when giving feedback to students (Witt &Kerssen-Griep, 2011). Feedback is a crucial part of the learning experience and anecessary part of the mentoring relationship that exists between instructor andstudent. Done well, feedback can help students feel encouraged and motivated to riseto the occasion and reach their potential. Done poorly, however, feedback may leavestudents feeling discouraged or degraded. In other words, feedback has strongimplications for students’ face. Because of this, instructors may find themselveswondering if they must compromise either their relational goals by being truthful

Face Threat Mitigation and Student Motivation 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

about student performance, or their educational goals by providing less than rigorouscritiques.

Recent research has suggested this is not necessary; stringent feedback and stronginstructor–student relationships need not be mutually exclusive (Kerssen-Griep et al.,2008; Trees et al., 2009). To the extent that instructional feedback is worded toexpress tact (leaving students free to choose how to respond to feedback, avoidingpushing students to agree with suggestions), solidarity (showing understanding,concern for students, helping individuals feel they are important members of theclass), and/or approbation (working to avoid casting students in a negative light,avoiding expressing disapproval of individual students), the feedback can mitigateface threat for students (Kerssen-Griep, Hess, & Trees, 2003). When instructors usethe communication strategies of FTM and NVI jointly in their feedback, positiveacademic and relational outcomes can both be achieved.

In a two-part study, Witt and Kerssen-Griep (2011; Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2012)assigned students at random to one of four conditions, each a combination of high vs.low immediacy and high vs. low FTM. Participants were shown one of four videos ofthe same instructor. The students were then asked to rate the instructor’s credibility.Results indicated use of FTM was associated with the competence and characterdimensions of credibility, and also with student motivation, but only when NVI wasalso high. The effect of FTM on perceived caring was present at both levels of NVIbut was intensified when NVI was high.

Witt and Kerssen-Griep’s findings that the effectiveness of FTM sometimesdepends upon instructors’ engaging in high rather than low immediacy (and viceversa) may not be relevant to a text-only online environment offering few instructornonverbal cues. This may sound self-evident, but NVI has been operationalized in thepast as an increasing set of behaviors measured from low to high, with the very lowestcondition by implication representing no immediacy. If this is the case, then “lownonverbal immediacy” ought to produce results similar to the complete absence ofnonverbal immediacy cues (“zero nonverbal immediacy”). In such a context, it is notclear what influence FTM would have on student outcomes. Therefore, we posed thefollowing research questions:

RQ1: Absent nonverbal immediacy cues, to what degree will levels of FTM influencestudents’ perceptions of instructor credibility (i.e., competence, character, and caring)during instructional feedback?

RQ2: Absent nonverbal immediacy cues, to what degree will levels of FTM influencestudents’ reported state motivation during instructional feedback?

Method

Like Witt and Kerssen-Griep, we used an experimental design in which wemanipulated the level of face threat mitigation. This enabled us to query actual

140 L. Trad et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

communicative differences rather than depending on student perceptions andrecollection of FTM they have experienced.

Participants

Participants were students enrolled in a large lecture introduction to communicationcourse at a large university in the southeastern United States. The sample consisted of103 males (47.2%), 114 females (52.3%), and one participant (0.5%) who declined toindicate their sex. It included students from a variety of majors. Ages ranged from 18to 31 years of age, with a mean age of 19.2 years. With regard to year of study, 105(48.2%) identified themselves as freshmen, 48 (22.0%) as sophomores, 31 (14.2%) asjuniors, 31 (14.7%) as seniors; and two (0.9%) did not indicate their class rank.Students who participated were given extra credit. Students who chose not toparticipate or who were under 18 years of age were given an alternative extra creditassignment. Participation was anonymous.

Procedure

Upon giving consent, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditionsand given a paper survey booklet. They were asked to provide demographicinformation and complete an instructional feedback orientation scale (IFO; Kinget al., 2009) to assess their trait responses to feedback interventions. They then read ascenario in which they were asked to imagine that they had returned home frommaking a presentation in a public speaking class to find a letter from the instructor(unnamed) in their course mail giving them feedback about the presentation. In thefirst condition, high-FTM language was used. In the second condition, low-FTMlanguage was used. Once they read the scenarios, students completed a questionnaireassessing their perception of instructor credibility (McCroskey & Teven, 1999) as wellas a measure of state motivation (Christophel, 1990).

Measurement

Manipulation of FTM. We used the same scripts with minimal modification asKerssen-Griep and Witt (2012) and Witt and Kerssen-Griep (2011). The content ofeach of the two messages was the same, but the language used to convey the messagerepresented either a low- or high-FTM condition. In the high-FTM condition, theinstructor varied his communication strategies in an effort to protect the student’sface when offering potentially face threatening criticism. For example, the low-FTMinstructor was portrayed as telling the student, “When you lost your place, youcompletely lost your composure.” In the high-FTM script, this was replaced with aself-disclosive expression of solidarity: “When you lost your place, it threw you off fora while, but you managed that better than I did in my first college speech.” Similarly,potentially face threatening directives in the low-FTM condition such as “You have topractice giving the speech…” were presented less directly and more tactfully in thehigh-FTM condition: “You might also consider…” and “What went well from your

Face Threat Mitigation and Student Motivation 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

perspective?” Hypothetical scenarios for the two conditions were approximately thesame length. To ensure that modifications to the scripts did not affect manipulationof FTM, four graduate students blind to the purpose of the study were provided witha 15-item checklist describing characteristics of face threatening messages (Kerssen-Griep, Hess & Trees, 2003). They were then asked to indicate on a scale of 1–5 theextent to which each message was face threatening. The mean threat score for thehigh-FTM scenario was 2.0, and the mean threat score for the low-FTM scenariowas 4.0.

IFO. Students’ trait orientation to instructional feedback was measured using the IFO(King, Schrodt, & Weisel, 2009). The scale is a 33-item, 5-point Likert-typeassessment of the participants’ typical response to instructional feedback. Responsesrange from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) in four categories of response tofeedback. The categories break down as follows: 10 items representing the dimensionof utility, nine items for sensitivity, five items assessing confidentiality, and three itemson retention. Past reliability scores for the IFO have been reported as .66 for utility,.85 for sensitivity, .85 for confidentiality, and .60 for retention (Witt & Kerssen-Griep,2011). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the current study were: .83 forutility, .87 for sensitivity, .83 for confidentiality, and .81 for retention.

Student perceptions of teacher credibility. Instructor credibility was measured by the18-item semantic differential scale assessing instructor credibility (McCroskey &Teven, 1999). This scale measures the three dimensions of credibility with 7-pointbipolar pairs assessing competence, caring, and character, with six items per subscale.Previous reliability coefficients for the three subscales have been reported as .83 forcompetence, .83 for character, and .77 for caring (Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011).Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for the current study were .90 for competence, .90 forcharacter (trustworthiness), and .86 for caring.

Student state motivation. Students’ state motivation was measured using Christo-phel’s (1990) motivation scale, a 12-item semantic differential scale that uses bipolaradjectives listed on a 7-point response format. The scale is used to measure howmotivated a student feels about a particular class. The scale’s reliability was previouslyreported as .81 (Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2012). Reliability for the current studywas .91.

Analysis

In keeping with the replication, the methods used by Witt and Kerssen-Griep (2011)and Kerssen-Griep and Witt (2012), a MANCOVA was conducted with the threedimensions of instructor credibility (competence, trustworthiness, and caring) andstudent motivation as dependent variables, FTM as the independent variable, and theIFO dimensions of retention and utility as covariates. Four ANCOVAs were

142 L. Trad et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

conducted using FTM as the independent variable and each dimension of instructorcredibility (competence, trustworthiness, and caring) and student motivation asdependent variables to further clarify the results.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all variables are reported in Table 1. The results of theMANCOVA revealed significant multivariate main effects for FTM, Wilks’ λ = .764,F(4, 195) = 15.020, η2 = .24, p < .0001, indicating an overall effect on the dependentvariables for FTM. Following Witt and Kerssen-Griep (2011), this result was obtainedafter accounting for covariance with IFO dimensions of retention and utility. The firstresearch questions asked to what degree FTM influenced students’ perceptions ofinstructor credibility (i.e., competence, character, and caring) during instructionalfeedback, absent nonverbal immediacy cues. Univariate ANCOVAs revealed smallbut significant main effects for FTM on instructor competence, F(1, 210) = 5.616,p = .019, η2 = .03, and character, F(1, 214) = 13.103, p < .0001, η2 = .06, and amoderate effect on caring, F(1, 213) = 39.285 p < .0001, η2 = .16, as per Cohen’s(1965) guidelines for effect sizes in social scientific research.

The second research question asked to what degree FMT influenced students’ self-reported state motivation during instructional feedback absent nonverbal immediacycues. The univariate ANCOVA revealed a moderate effect for FTM on studentmotivation, F(1, 208) = 26.187, p < .0001, η2 = .11. Thus, a positive relationshipbetween FTM and all four dependent variables was evident.

Discussion

We designed the present study to evaluate the effects of FTM on instructor credibility(i.e., competence, character, and caring) and students’ state motivation in a feedbacksituation without the influence of NVI cues. Our results indicated that in a situationwhere no instructor nonverbal cues were available, FTM alone produced resultssimilar to the high NVI/high-FTM condition in Witt and Kerssen-Griep’s (2011)study. Specifically, effect sizes on dependent variables in the current study are similarto those of Witt and Kerssen-Griep’s high NVI/high-FTM condition. The effect sizefor FTM on motivation in the present study (η2 = .11), in fact, is higher than thatobtained by Kerssen-Griep and Witt (2012) in the high NVI/high-FTM condition(η2 = .05). Although we did not explicitly compare the text-only FTM message with amessage that combined both high-FTM and high instructor nonverbal NVI, thecomparison between the two studies suggests it is possible that FTM alone in text-only courses could exert just as strong an influence on instructor credibility andstudent motivation as messages with nonverbal components like videos. This findingis in line with the assertion of social information processing theory (Walther, 1992)that individuals are able to form impressions of others via computer-mediatedcommunication, even without the benefit of visual cues. According to the theory, forthis to occur individuals must have adequate time for interaction and/or must have

Face Threat Mitigation and Student Motivation 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach Alphas, and Pearson Correlation Coefficients for All Variables

Variables M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1-IFO-Utility 39.33 4.33 0.83 –2-IFO-Sensitivity 18.51 6.73 0.87 −0.037** –3-IFO-Confidentiality 17.75 4.38 0.83 0.089** 0.446** –4-IFO-Retention 6.23 2.60 0.81 −0.341** 0.375** 0.025 –5-Competence 32.50 7.11 0.90 0.253** −0.154** −0.112 −0.322** –6-Trustworthiness 33.62 6.25 0.90 0.302** −0.213** −0.093 −0.389** 0.891** –7-Caring 32.25 7.07 0.86 0.228** −0.179** −0.048 −0.376** 0.775** 0.843** –8-Motivation 55.25 12.31 0.91 0.358** −0.164** −0.106 −0.366** 0.565** 0.618** 0.647** –

*Significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). **Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

144L.

Trad

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

an expectation of future interaction with one another. A typical 15-week semesterfulfills both of these criteria.

An additional potential implication of these findings—but which did not fall withinthe parameters of this study—is that low NVI more accurately describes a negativequality of instructor communication. That is, low NVI is really “negative NVI,” and isqualitatively different from a situation where there are no NVI cues whatsoever.Rather than an increasing amount of a particular set of communicative behaviors,therefore, it may be that immediacy should be reconceptualized as a polarizedconstruct with no true neutral, where negative immediacy behaviors (hitherto called“low immediacy”) may have a negative effect.

This research should be viewed within the bounds of its limitations. Theexperimental design of this study allowed researchers to manipulate the conditionsof the feedback as well as eliminate the possibility of any preconceived notions aboutthe instructor. Because the instructor in the experiment was fictional and withoutdescription, there was no bias due to age, sex, or race. However, experimentalscenarios are dependent on the willingness and ability of the participants to imaginethemselves in the treatment. Participants’ lack of experience, lack of imagination, orlack of willingness to “play the game” may potentially limit the generalizability of thecurrent study. In our study, because only 16 (7.3%) of participants had previouslytaken a speech class, it is possible they lacked sufficient contextual experience toaccurately imagine themselves in the scenarios. Future research using natural settingsand authentic situations should be undertaken for more ecological validity, beforebroad inferences are made.

With the current trend toward online instruction, it is crucial to explore methodsfor instructors to enhance both student motivation and their own credibility in virtualspace. Although posting videos in online courses is increasingly possible, instructorsmay choose not to do so for a range of reasons. For these instructors, this studyprovides good news: It is possible that carefully crafted verbal feedback alone mayhave the power to motivate students and enhance their own credibility. Given themany economic and logistic reasons for higher education to move toward onlinecourses and degrees, this study represents one step toward understanding howinstructors can communicate to accomplish those goals in primarily text-basedenvironments.

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.

Baker, J. D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective andcognitive learning in the online classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 71, 1–13.doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.006

Banfield, S. R., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors onteacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55, 63–72.doi:10.1080/03634520500343400

Face Threat Mitigation and Student Motivation 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

Beatty, M. J., & Zahn, C. J. (1990). Are student ratings of communication instructors due to “easy”grading practices? An analysis of teacher credibility and student-reported performance levels.Communication Education, 39, 275–282. doi:10.1080/03634529009378809

Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. EducationalLeadership, 45, 40–48.

Burroughs, N. F. (2007). Reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy andstudent compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453–475.doi:10.1080/03634520701530896

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation,and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813

Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychology research. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbookof clinical psychology (pp. 95–121). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbalimmediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communica-tion Research Reports, 24, 241–248. doi:10.1080/08824090701446617

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychology, 26, 325–346. doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. EducationalPsychologist, 34, 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42,133–144. doi:10.1080/01463379409369922

Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation toperceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 389–399. doi:10.1080/03634529209378900

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry:Journal of Interpersonal Relations, 18, 213–231.

Johnson, S. D., & Miller, A. N. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learningin the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education, 51, 280–292. doi:10.1080/03634520216514

Katt, J. A., & Condly, S. J. (2009). A preliminary study of classroom motivators and demotivatorsfrom a motivation-hygiene perspective. Communication Education, 58, 213–234. doi:10.1080/03634520802511472

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, C. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy andstrategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education,37, 54–67. doi:10.1080/03634528809378703

Kerssen-Griep, J., Hess, J. A., & Trees, A. R. (2003). Sustaining the desire to learn: Dimensions ofperceived instructional facework related to student involvement and motivation to learn.Western Journal of Communication, 67, 357–381. doi:10.1080/10570310309374779

Kerssen-Griep, J., Trees, A. R., & Hess, J. A. (2008). Attentive facework during instructionalfeedback: Key to perceiving mentorship and an optimal learning environment. Communica-tion Education, 57, 312–332. doi:10.1080/03634520802027347

Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: How do instructor immediacy cuesand facework tactics interact to predict student motivation and fairness perception?Communication Studies, 63, 498–217. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.632660

King, P. E., Schrodt, P., & Weisel, J. J. (2009). The instructional feedback orientation scale:Conceptualizing and validating a new measure for assessing perceptions of instructionalfeedback. Communication Education, 58, 235–261. doi:10.1080/03634520802515705

King, P., & Witt, P. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement ofcognitive learning. Communication Education, 58, 110–123. doi:10.1080/03634520802511233

McCroskey, J. C, & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and itsmeasurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464

146 L. Trad et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior ResearchMethods & Instrumentation, 1, 203–207. doi:10.3758/BF03208096

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Mottet, T., & Richmond, V. (1998). An inductive analysis of verbal immediacy: Alternative

conceptualization of relational verbal approach/avoidance strategies. Communication Quar-terly, 46, 25–40. doi:10.1080/01463379809370082

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Sabee, C. M., & Wilson, S. R. (2005). Students’ primary goals, attributions, and facework duringconversation about disappointing grades. Communication Education, 54, 185–204. doi:10.1080/03634520500356154

Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy onperceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom.Communication Education, 39, 341–352. doi:10.1080/03634529009378814

Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function ofstudents’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Commun-ication Education, 55, 1–20. doi:10.1080/03634520500343335

Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Turman, P. D., Myers, S. A., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K. A. (2009).Instructor credibility as a mediator of instructors’ prosocial communication behaviors andstudents’ learning outcomes. Communication Education, 58, 350–371. doi:10.1080/03534523.2011.555917

Schutt, M., Allen, B. S., & Laumakis, M. A. (2009). The effects of instructor immediacy behaviors inonline learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10, 135–48.

Teven, J. J. (2001). The relationships among teacher characteristics and perceived caring.Communication Education, 50, 159–169. doi:10.1080/03634520109379241

Teven, J. J. (2007). Teacher caring and classroom behavior: Relationships with student affect andperceptions of teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 55,433–450. doi:10.1080/01465570701658077

Teven, J. J., & Hanson, T. L. (2004). The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring onteacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52, 39–53. doi:10.1080/01463370409370177

Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with studentlearning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9. doi:10.1080/03634529709379069

Teven, J., & Monte, M. (2008, November). Teacher caring in the college classroom: A review of theconstruct and its correlates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalCommunication Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p257899_index.html

Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors onteacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348–358. doi:10.1080/03634529809379141

Trees, A. R., Kerssen-Griep, J., & Hess, J. A. (2009). Earning influence by communicating respect:Facework’s contributions to effective instructional feedback. Communication Education, 58,397–416. doi:10.1080/03634520802613419

Walther, Joseph B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relationalperspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003

Wheeless, L. R. (1975). The relationship of four elements to immediate recall and student instructorinteraction. Western Speech Communication, 39, 131–140. doi:10.1080/10570317509373858

Witt, P. L., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework andimmediacy on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60,75–94. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.507820

Face Threat Mitigation and Student Motivation 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014

Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2001). An experimental study of teachers’ verbal and nonverbalimmediacy and students’ affective and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50,327–342. doi:10.1080/03634520109379259

Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationshipbetween teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207.doi:10.1080/036452042000228054

148 L. Trad et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ann

Nev

ille

Mill

er]

at 0

7:18

27

Mar

ch 2

014