~t:<. 0~ '--..-.

mE EFFECT OF INTERACTION BEHAVIOR ON SOURCE CREDIBIUTY,HOMOPHILY, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

JAMES C. McCROSKEY

West Virginia University

PAUL R. HAMILTONUniversity of Oregon

ALLEN N. WEINER

University of Southern California

This study investigated the relationship between interaction behavior in asmall group setting and the resulting perceptions group members have of oneanother. Trained raters coded the interaction behavior of subjects, whodiscussed a task-oriented topic in small groups. Results indicate thatinteraction behavior can account for a substantial percentage of the variancein group members' perceptions of one another. Apparently, the sameinteraction behavior may simultaneously result in both more positive andmore negative perceptions on the part of other group members, suggestingthat different interaction strategies are appropriate for varying desiredpersonal outcomes.

Over the past quarter century results fromexperimental and field research have repeatedlyindicated the importance of the source credibilityvariable in the communication process (Andersen& Clevenger, 1963; Littlejohn, 1972). Similarly,the interpersonal attraction variable has beenfound to influence heavily interaction behaviors ofcommunicators (Berscheid & Walster, 1969).Source credibility has been considered primarily asan agent responsible for certain communicationoutcomes, such as attitude change. More recently,credibility has increasingly been examined as itselfa communication outcome, and attempts havebeen made to determine what causes a source'scredibility to increase or decrease (Littlejohn,1972). Interpersonal attraction has been examinedin a variety of contexts: as a cause of communica-tion, as an effect of communication, and as avariable responsible for certain communicationoutcomes (Berscheid & Walster, 1969).

Homophily, the degree to which two communi-cators perceive themselves as similar, has receivedconsiderable attention from researchers concernedwith the communication of new ideas, products,and practices. This variable, also, has been ex-amined as a cause of communication, as an effect

of communication, and as a variable responsiblefor certain communication outcomes (Rogers &Shoemaker, 1971).

Credibility, attraction, and homophily can allbe viewed as ways that receivers (or potentialreceivers) perceive sources, or potential sources, ofcommunication. These perceptions have beenfound to affect communication in several ways.Credibility (Wheeless, 1973), attraction (Berscheid& Walster, 1969), and homophily (Rogers &Shoemaker, 1971) are all significantly related tovoluntary exposure to communication. Receiversseem to be more willing to expose them~lves tocommunication from sources they perceive to becredible, attractive, and/or homophilous than theyare to sources they perceive less positively on thesevariables. Subsequent to exposure, credibility(Wheeless, 1972; Anderson, 1973) has been shownto be positively related to the acquisition ofinformation from communication. Essentially, re-ceivers learn more from sources they perceive tobe credible than from those they perceive lesspositively. Finally, credibility (Andersen & Cleven-ger, 1963), attraction (Berscheid & Walster, 1969).and homophily (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971) artrelated to influence through communication. Re-

INTERAcrION BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTIONS OF SOURCES

ceivers are persuaded more by sources they per-ceive to be credible and/or attractive than by thosethey view less positively. Similarly, in general,sources homophilous with their receivers are morepersuasive with them. This conclusion, however,should be modified to include the concept of"optimal heterophily;" Le., the most influentialsource is highly homophilous with the receiver inall other important respects, but is perceived assomewhat more competent on the topic in ques-tion.

Since the perceptions that communicators haveof others have such a major impact on theoutcomes of communication, the variables affect-ing these perceptions are of concern to thecommunication theorist interested in determininghow these perceptions operate in human com-munication systems. Antecedent or external con-ditions, such as an individual's reputation, ofcourse, should be expected to impinge on areceiver's perceptions, as should the receiver'spersonality, attitudes, beliefs, values, etc. Thesevariables, indeed, may account for most of thevariance in perception. Much of person A's percep-tion of person B, therefore, is a product ofvariables over which person B has little or nocontrol. The major variable over which person Bcan exert considerable control is his or her

communication behavior in the presence of personA. A major outcome of variability in communica-tion behavior, therefore, should be associatedvariability in perceived credibility, attraction, andhomophily. Since these variables all have im-portant correlates. beyond a given communicationtransaction (such as exposure, information gain,attitude change, and behavior change), deter-mining how communication behavior affects per-ceived credibility, attraction, and homophily hasconsiderable intrinsic value. But of at least equalimportance, since these variables have been foundto affect both the degree and the quality ofcommunication between people, determining howcommunication behavior affects these variables in

a givencommunication transaction may provide uswith a tool for predicting the impact of one

43

communication transaction on subsequent trans-actions.

The present investigation focused on sourcecredibility, homophily, and interpersonal attrac-tion as outcomes of communication. These threeconstructs were chosen for study for two reasons.First, as noted previously, all three have a majorimpact on communication. Second, while mostresearch has investigated these variables individ-ually, there is reason to believe that they mayoperate together as part of a single system. Rogersand Bhowmik (1971), for example, argue thatperceived homophily is positively related to attrac-tion and the "character" or "safety" dimensionsof credibility. Later support for this position hasbeen provided by Rogers (1973) and Alpert andAnderson (1973). It was hypothesized that inter-action behavior of communicators in a small groupwould predict the degree of source credibility,homophily, and interpersonal attraction attributedto those communicators by other members oftheir group.

Rationale

Source credibility, homophily, and inter-personal attraction are perceptions of one personon the part of another person or persons. What aperson "in reality" is mayor may not influencethat person's credibility, homophily, or attractive-ness in a given case. Whether a person's communi-cation behavior givesan accurate reflection of that~rson is moot. Observers of that behavior shouldbe expected to interpret a person's communicationbehavior as reflective of the "real person" andutilize these interpretations in conjunction withother observations of the person's behavior, in-formation, and opinions about the person providedby other people, and the observer's own orienta-tions, attitudes, beliefs, etc., in forming impres-sions of the person. An important question forcommunication scholars, therefore, is: to whatextent are observable interaction behaviors predic-tors of a communicator's perceived source credi-bility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction?

44 McCroskey, Hamilton and Weiner

This investigation was designed to provide aninitial indication of the answer to that question.

METHOD

Operationalization and Measurement

Interaction Behavior

Interaction behavior was operationalized asscores assigned to subjects by observer raters

employing the Interaction Behavior Measure (IBM)developed by McCroskey and Wright (1971). Inthe pilot study the raters were Wldergraduatestudents in the same classes as the subjects. Ratersin the main study were nine graduate students incommunication. The IBM was developed by meansof factor analytic procedures and based on theearlier work of Leathers (1969). The six dimen-sions on the instrument are labeled Orientation,Tension, Relevance, Interest, Flexibility, andVerbosity (McCroskey & Wright, 1971). Eachdimension is measured by observations recordedon two bipolar, seven-step scales yielding a pos-sible score range of 2-14. The Orientation scalesare: task-oriented or socially-emotionally orientedand ideational or personal. Scales for Tension are:bothered or cool and tense or relaxed. Relevancescales are: relevant or irrelevant and related orWlrelated. Interested or apathetic and involved orwithdrawn are the scales for Interest. Flexibilityscales are: flexible or inflexible and unchangeableor changeable. The Verbosity scales are: wordy orshort and brief or lengthy.

Previous research has indicated the reliabilityand factoral stability of the instrument whenemployed in a manner similar to that in thepresent investigation (Consoli, 1971; Larsen, 1971;McCroskey & Wright, 1971; McMurray, 1972).Because of the procedures employed in the pilotstudy in this investigation, it was not possible totest the reliability of the instrument. However,factor analysis indicated the presence of thepreviously observed six dimensions. In the mainstudy, the raters were formed in three personteams so that reliability for each team for each

dimension could be estimated by the Hoyt (1941)

procedure. In general, the estimated reliability washigh, from .60 to .95. Estimates for two teams,however, indicated lack of reliability on theTension and Flexibility dimensions (below .60).Consequently, subanalyses of the data were per-formed to determine whether including only thegroups with reliable ratings on these dimensionsincreased the precision of the prediction of thecriterion variables.

Interpersonal Attraction

Interpersonal attraction was operationalized asscores on three dimensions of interpersonal attrac.tion as measured by 15 Likert-type scales devel-oped by McCroskey and McCain (1972). Thesescales have been found to be reliable and thefactor structure has been replicated across severalstudies (McCroskey & McCain, 1972; Quiggens,1972; Wakshlag, 1973). Factor analysis of the datain the pilot study also indicated the presence ofthe three dimensions previously observed. Thethree dimensions of interpersonal attraction werelabeled Task, Social, and Physical (McCroskey &McCain, 1972). Analysis of the data from the mainstudy indicated the presence of three indepc..det.ldimensions. Both orthogonal and oblique analyseswere performed. In each analysis a three-factorsolution was rotated. The preset criterion for asatisfactory loading of an item on a resultingfactor was that the item must have a principalloading of at least .60 and no secondary loadingabove .40. All except one item met the criteria andloaded on the intended factor in both analyses (seeTable 1). Estimated internal reliability of measure.ment, based on the Hoyt procedure for each of thethree dimensions, as noted in Table 1, exceeded.80.

The factors in the oblique analysis were ex.amined to determine their intercorrelations. Taskand Physical Attraction were found to correlate at.20, Task and Social at .36, and Physical andSocial at .38. Since these are fairly low correia.tions indicating little shared variance, these resultsindicate that the three dimensions of attraction inthis study were relatively independent.

INTERACfION BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTIONS OF SOURCES 45

ItemNumbert*123456789101112131415

Eigenvalue

Variance

InternalReliabilityof 5 BestItems .86 .81 .84

.satisfactory loadingt 1.[ think he (she) could be a friend of mine.

2. It would be difficult to meet and talk with him (her).3. He(she) just wouldn't fit into my circle of friends.4. Wecould never establish a personal friendship with each other.5. I would like to have a friendly chat with him (her).6. I think he (she) is quite handsome (pretty).7. He (she) is very sexy looking.8. I find him (her) very attractive physically.9. I don't like the way he (she) looks.

10.He(she) is somewhat ugly.II. He(she) is a typical goof-off when assigned a job to do.12.I haveconfidence in his (her) ability to get the job done.13.lf [wanted to get things done, I could probably depend on him (her).14.1couldn't get anything accomplished with him (her).IS. He (she) would be a poor problem solver.

TABLE 1Factor Loadings and Reliability

for Interpersonal Attraction Measure

FactorPhysical Task Social

Orthogonal Oblique Orthogonal Oblique Orthogonal Oblique.25 .11 -.22 -.08 -.71* -.70*

-.06 .10 .10 -.05 .81* .86*-.17 -.03 .08 -.07 .75* .78*-.16 -.01 .20 .06 .77* .78*

.27 .17 -.22 -.11 -.63* -.50

.85* .85* -.10 -.02 -.22 -.05

.87* .90* -.02 .05 -.16 .00

.83* .86* .00 .07 -.12 .03-.67* -.65* .13 .05 .29 .17-.75* -.78* .10 .05 .10 -.06-.09 -.05 .68* .71 * .02 -.12

.08 .03 -.77* .80* -.07 .08

.05 -.03 -.85* -.87* -.17 -.02-.05 .05 .77* .76* .28 .16-.04 .05 .66* .65* .25 .14

3.40 3.36 3.00 2.94 3.07 2.80

23 22 20 20 20 19

46 McCroskey, Hamilton and Weiner

*satisfactory loadingtA=Orthogonai solution, B=Oblique solution

Source Credibility and Homophily to measure perceived Homophily (Rogers & Shoe-maker, 1971) were added (see Table 2). Thismeasure of homophily focused on perceived atti-tudinal similarity. Although previous research con-cerning homophily in communication has usedprimarily external, presumably "objective," ob-servations of similarity as an indicant of homo-phily, as Rogers and Bhowmik (1971) have notedsubjective perceptions of homophily are probablymuch more important in human communication.

Source credibility was operationalized as scoreson semantic differential-type scales designed tomeasure five dimensions of credibility. The scalesselected for inclusion were those suggested byMcCroskey, Jensen, and Valencia (1973). Scalesdesigned to measure Competence, Character, So-ciability, Composure, and Extroversion were in-cluded (see Table 2). In addition, scales designed

TABLE 2Factor Loadings and Reliability for

Credibility-Homophily Measure

Extro- FactorSociability version Homophily Competence Composure Character

Scale A B*t A B A B A B A B A BGood natured-

irritable .82* .90* -.08 -.03 .15 -.03 .23 .06 .19 .05 -.23 .02Cheerful-gloomy .83* .91 * -.14 .03 .19 .01 .19 .02 .18 .02 -.21 .04Unfriendly-friendly -.70* -.73* .12 -.03 -.20 -.05 -.10 .08 -.14 -.01 .34 .17Timid-bold -.01 .10 .78* -.76* -.06 .02 -.01 .09 -.35 -.23 .08 .09Verbal-quiet .11 .03 -.91 * .93* .12 .02 .13 .06 .20 -.01 -.02 .03Talkative-silent .16 .10 -.90* .93* .12 .02 .12 .05 .16 -.06 -.03 .04Thinks like me-

doesn't thinklike me .t6 .02 -.09 -.03 .81* .84* .25 .13 .14 .05 -.11 .06

Unlike me-like me -.15 -.01 .12 -.02 -.87* -.91 * -.15 -.01 -.07 .02 .15 .00Doesn't share my .

attitudes-shares myattitudes -.14 .01 .10 .00 -.84* -.89* -.06 ;09 -.08 -.01 .22 .09

Expert-inexpert .13 .01 -.13 .07 .14 .03 .71 * .73* .14 .00 -.17 -.03Unintelligent-

intelligent -.12 .02 .01 .10 -.09 .04 -.71 * -.71 * -.28 -.19 .25 .13Intellectual-narrow .21 .10 -.13 .06 .23 .11 .74* .75* .12 -.04 -.17 .01Poised-nervous .17 .03 -.36 .16 .15 .06 .22 .06 .76* .76* -.09 .00Tense-relaxed -.16 -.01 .33 -.10 -.10 -.01 -.17 .00 -.82* -.85* .11 .04Calm-anxious .20 .08 -.17 -.08 .09 .01 .20 .04 .83* .89* -.07 .03Dishonest-honest -.21 -.03 .10 -.08 -.12 .04 -.34 -.21 -.03 .09 .73* .74*Unsympathetic-

sympathetic -.21 -.02 .00 .06 -.16 -.02 -.18 -.01 -.13 -.07 .79* .82*Good-bad .24 .06 -.05 .01 .21 .08 .12 -.06 .07 .00 -.77* -.80*

Eigenvalue 2.27 2.22 2.63 2.38 2.45 2.36 2.05 1.70 2.36 2.21 2.20 1.93

Variance 13 12 15 13 14 13 1I 9 13 12 12 I I

Internal Reliabilityof 3 Best Items .91 .96 .89 .79 .92 .81

INTERAcrION BEBAVlOR AND PERCEPTIONSOF SOURCES 47

Research completed subsequent to the collectionof the present data indicates that these perceptionsare multidimensional. However, since this informa-tion was not available at the time of this study,only the dimension concerning attitudinal sim-ilarity was included.

Factor analysis of the data from the pilot studyindicated the presence of five dimensions ofresponse. The expected dimensions were obtaine~,however, Character and Sociability combined toform a single factor. The data from the main studywere subjected to both orthogonal and obliquefactor analyses employing the same criteria foracceptable loadings noted above for the attractionanalyses. Six-factor solutions were rotated. Eachitem in both analyses met the criteria and loadedon the intended factor. Internal reliability esti-mates for the dimensions ranged from. 79 to .96(see Table 2). The factors in the oblique analysis,which as indicated in Table 2 were virtuallyidentical (in terms of loadings for primary items)to the factors in the orthogonal analysis, werefound to be intercorrelated. Sociability and Char-acter shared a .53 correlation. Competence andCharacter resulted in a .42 correlation. Composureand Extroversion shared a .48 correlation. Otherintercorrelations were .20 or smaller. These resultsindicate that although there were six distinctdimensions of response reflected on the scales, thedimensionswere not completely independent.

Subjects

There were two parts to this investigation, thepilot phase and the main study. The pilot studyinvolved37 Ss (after exclusion of Ss who providedincomplete data) in three small group communica-tion classes in a midwestern university. The mainstudy included 115 Ss in eight classes in inter-personal communication at an eastern university.In both cases, Ss were randomly assigned togroups. In the pilot study, the group size variedfrom four to six, depending on enrollment. In themain study, there were five Ss in each of 23groups.

Procedure

The pilot study was conducted during the ninthweek of the semester. Ss had been assigned togroups during the third week and had beeninvolved in a variety of problem-solving taskdiscussions each class period for six weeks. Duringthe third week of the semester, the raters in theclasses had been trained in the use of the IBM and

had practiced using it with live discussion groups.The raters and the Ss came from the same classes.

During a regular class period, with no indication ofthe fact that an experiment was in progress, onegroup engaged in a discussion for 25 minutes whileanother group served as observers, rating each S'sinteraction behavior once every five-minuteperiod. There was no attempt to insure that eachobserver was rating the same interaction as everyother observer. Rather, while one observer wasrating one S, another observer could be rating adifferent S.

The main study was conducted the tenth weekof the semester. The Ss had engaged in a numberof small group activities and projects during theterm and were well acquainted with each other.The groups were constituted by randomly assign-ing five 5s to each group. The groups, therefore,should be thought of as essentially zero-historygroups. Even thougfi the 5s had worked togetherbefore and were acquainted, the particular com-bination of 5s in the groups was unique to thattime.

The group task was to arrive at a groupevaluation of the course in which the 5s were

enrolled and to provide suggestions concerninghow the course might be improved. Observers inthe main study were nine graduate assistantstrained in the use of the IBM. Three observerswere assigned to rate each group. The discussionslasted 30 minutes, with each observer rating each Severy five minutes.

In both the pilot study and the main study, theSs were asked to complete the credibility, homo-phily, and attraction measures for each member oftheir group (other than themselves) after thediscussion. In the pilot study, the 5s took the

48 McCroskey, Hamilton and Weiner

instruments home and were instructed to return

them the following week. This proved to be a poorprocedure since many Ss failed to return theinstruments because they either lost them orforgot them. As a consequence, there were insuffi-cient data for 27 of the original 64 Ss to beretained in the study. While there is no reason tosuspect that this attrition systematically biased theresults, the sharply reduced sample si3e substan-tially reduced the power of the statistical testsmade on the data and could well have preventedmany meaningful effects from achieving signifi-cance. This problem was overcome in the mainstudy by having the Ss complete the instrumentsduring the same class period immediately after thediscussion.

Data Analyses

The data were submitted to a series of step-wisemultiple regression analyses. The predictor vari-ables were the ratings on the six dimensions of theIBM. These scores were computed by taking themean rating for a given dimension across the timeperiods for a. single rater and then taking a meanacross raters. The criterion variables were the

scores on the credibility, homophily, and attrac-tion measures. These scores were computed bytaking a mean score for the S on a given dimensionacross the scores assigned by the other members ofthe S's group on that dimension.

The analyses were designed to discover themost parsimonious prediction model. Conse-quently, the regression analyses were terminatedwhen extraction of an additional predictor re-sulted in an increase in explained variance of lessthan one percent or when the entering variableresulted in the overall model being nonsignificant(p <.05), whichever came first.

RESULTS

Pilot Study

The results of the regression analyses failed toconfirm the hypothesis that interaction behavior isa significant predictor of interpersonal attraction

or the source credibility dimensions of Compe-tence, Composure, and Character-Sociability~ Nooverall regression model for these criterion vari-ables achieved statistical significance.

The regression model for Extroversion, whichincluded three significant predictors, was found tobe the best model (F=4.96). This model includedFlexibility, Interest, and Verbosity which com-bined to predict 36% of the variance on perceivedExtroversion (see Table 3). High Verbosity, highInterest, and low Flexibility were associated withhigh perceived Extroversion.

The best obtained regression model for Homo-phily included two significant predictors, Rele-vance and Interest, which accounted for 41% ofthe variance on perceived Homophily (F=7.29).Subjects with highly relevant interactions andwhose interactions were characterized as involvedand interested were perceived as more homo-philous by -the other members of their groups (seeTable 3).

TABLE 3Results of Multiple Regression Analyses

for Source Credibilityand Interpersonal Attraction:

Pilot Study

StandardizedBeta Weightsof Predictors

OrientationFlexibilityRelevanceInterestTensionVerbosityPredictable Variance

CriterionExtroversion Homophily

-.41

.56.54.71

.81

.36 .41

An impact of the small sample size was sug-gested in the analyses that failed to achievestatistical significance. In several instances, modelspredicting up to 25% of the variance were ob-tained, but they did not achievesatisfactory-(p<.05) significance levels-Since in this investigationit was assumed that variables other than those

INTERACTION BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTIONS OF SOURCES 49

TABLE 4Results of Multiple Regression Analyses

for Source Credibility.and Interpersonal Attraction: Main Study(Standardized Beta Weights of Predictors)

under consideration as predictors could accountfor a major portion of the variance on the criterionvariables, these nonsignificant results could well bethe result of low power of the tests rather than thefalsity of the hypothesis. The obtained significanceon the variables of Extroversion and Homophily inthe presence of this low power was taken as anindication that the general hypothesis is tenableand as a justification for conducting the mainstudy under more controlled conditions.

Main Study

The results of the regression analyses confirmedthe hypothesis that interaction behavior is apredictor of all dimensions of credibility, homo-phiIy, and attraction. The amount of variancepredictable ranged from a low of 28% for PhysicalAttraction to a high of 75% for Extroversion (seeTable 4). Some caution should be exercised in theinterpretation of the following results because thedegree of variance predictable is probably, in someinstances, underestimated. Since some raters dem-onstrated unreliability in their use of th~ Tensionand Flexibility measures, their inclusion in thisanalysis might be expected to reduce explainedvariance. Subanalyses, not reported in detail here~ecause of sample sizes, produced results indicat-

Ing that omission of the unreliable ratings in-creased predictable variance on each criterion

variable. This was particularly true for the TaskAttraction, Competence, and Composure variables,on each of which the amount of variance predict-able was increased by over 50%. However, sincethis research was designed as an initial explorationof the relationships among interaction behaviorand perceived attraction and credibility, it isprobably better to risk possible error in theconservative direction rather than attempt tointerpret the results of the subanalyses withoutreplication. The reduced sample size in theseanalyses makes them highly susceptible to chancefluctuations which could lead to faIse conclusionsand interpretations. The explained variance dis-cussed below, therefore, should be considered theminimum explainable variance, and it should berecognized that the interpretations of the observedrelationships might need to be altered as a result oflater research which overcomes the present re-liability problem and generates predictive modelsincluding greater weights for Tension and/or Flexi-bility.

The regression analysis indicated that the bestmodel for prediction of Social Attraction includedall of the predictor variables except Flexibility(F=3.8I). This model accounted for 40% of thevariance in Social Attraction ratings. High SocialAttraction was associated with low Interest, Ten-sion, and Relevance scores and high Verbosity and(task) Orientation scores.

PredictableCriterion Orientation Flexibility Relevance Interest Tension Verbosity VarianceSocial Attraction .46 - -.33 -1.10 -.86 .48 .40Physical Attraction .39 .27 .37 - - -.87 .28TaskAttraction .55 - .31 .83 .23 -.28 .39Competence .49 - - .29 .22 - .35Composure .89 - -.78 -.69 - 1.17 045Sociability .69 AI .42 -.67 - -.64 042Extroversion -.17 - - -.55 - 1.39 .75Character .87 .30 .23 -.92 - -.38 .38Homophily .43 - - -1.14 -.92 AI .33

50 McCroskey, Hamilton and Weiner

A four-variable model (F=3.34), accounting for28% of the variance, was the best obtained modelfor Physical Attraction. People with low Verbosityand high (task) Orientation, Flexibility, and Rele-vance scores were perceived as more physicallyattractive.

Thirty-nine percent of the variance in TaskAttraction ratings was found to be predictablefrom a five-variable model (F=3.69). People re-ceiving high Task Attraction ratings were observedto be less Verbose and make less Relevant con-

tributions. They also scored higher on Interest,(task) Orientation, and Tension.

A four-variable model for Composure ac-counted for 45% of the variance (F=6.18). HighComposure was related to high Verbosity and(task) Orientation and low Relevance and Interest.

The best regression model for Sociability ac-counted for 42% of the variance and included all

of the predictor variables except Tension (F=4.90). Subjects perceived to be more sociable wereobserved to be less Verbose and interested and

have higher (task) Orientation, Flexibility, andRelevance:

Seventy-five percent of the variance on Extro-version was found to be predictable in a three-variable model (F=31.l2). High Verbosity and lowInterest and (task) Orientation were associatedwith high Extroversion ratings.

A five-variable model for Character accountedfor 38% of the variance (F=4.13). High Characterwas associated with high (task) Orientation, Flexi-bility, and Relevance as well as low Interest andVerbosity.

The final regression analysis was for Homo-phily. The resulting four-variable model accountedfor 33% of the variance (F=3.64). Subjects whoexhibited low Interest and Tension as well as highVerbosity and (task) Orientation were perceived asmore Homophilous.

DISCUSSION

The results of this investigation clearly indicatethat observable interaction behaviors are pre-

dictors of perceived attraction, credibility, andhomophily. The extent to which the results of thisinvestigation can be generalized, of course, islimited by the constraints imposed by the designand procedures employed. The present investiga-tion employed college students and the specificproblem-solving task assigned in the main studywas to arrive at a group evaluation of the course inwhich the students were enrolled. While it was

initially assumed that this would be an interestingand involving task for the subjects, the results ofthe data analysis on Homophily indicated that thesubjects perceived that people who exhibited lowInterest were most like themselves. In fact, Inter-est was the best single predictor of perceivedHomophily. We might expect the sign of the betaweight to be reversed if the participants in thediscussion felt highly involved and interested inthe topic. .

Even with the present procedural limitations,however, some generalizations seem tenable. Oneof the more important is that a specific interactionbehavior may increase ratings on one dimension ofattraction, credibility, or homophily, while at thesame time contributing to a decrease in ~other.For example, high Interest was observed to beassociated positively with Task Attraction andnegatively with Social Attraction. Verbosity hadan exactly opposite relationship. Similarly, highRelevance was associated positively with PhysicalAttraction, Sociability, and Character and nega-tively with Social Attraction, Task Attraction, andComposure. Furthermore, high Verbosity was as-sociated positively with Social Attraction, Com-posure, Extroversion, and Homophily, but neg-atively with Physical Attraction, Task Attraction,Sociability, and Character. Only one interactionbehavior, Relevance, had only positive or negativerelationships with the criterion variables. But, inthis case, Relevance was included in only three ofthe nine models.

A major conclusion that can be drawn from thisstudy, therefore, is that the relationships betweenthe way people interact in a small group and theway they will be perceived in terms of attraction,

INTERACTION BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPI10NS OF SOURCES

homophily, and credibility are very complex. Anypossible advice.to communicators concerning whattype of interaction behavior is "good," at least atthis point in time, must be couched in a series ofreservations concerning the desired personal out-come from the interaction.

This conclusion may not seem particularlystriking at first reading. However, if we recognizethat there are a large number of books on groupcommunication and an even larger number ofgroup process and group discussion courses cur-rently providing prescriptions for effective groupinteraction behaviors, the import of the conclusiontakes on a new dimension. At this point in time,we do not know what interaction behaviorscontribute to what desired outcomes of human

communication. Even if the present investigationwere a definitive work on the relationships be-tween interaction behaviors and perceived attrac-tion, homophily, and credibility, which of courseit is not, we would still lack information on therelationships between interaction behaviors andother desired outcomes of interaction, such asconflict resolution, decision-making, group satis-faction, information acquisition, and influence.

The clear implication of the results of thisstudy is that there is a major need for a series ofinvestigations designed to develop predictive mod-els for various communication outcomes based onobservable interaction behaviors. Should this paperserve as a catalyst for such an effort, it will haveserveda usefulfunction. .

REFERENCES

ALPERT, M.L, & ANDERSON, W.T., JR. Optimalheterophily and communication effec.tiveness:Some empirical findings. Journal of Communi-cation, 1973, 23, 328-343.

ANDERSEN, K.E., & CLEVENGER, T., JR. ASummary of experimental research in ethos.Speech Monographs, 1963,30,59-78.

51

ANDERSEN, P. Credibility and learning. Unpub-lished masters thesis, Department of Speech,Illinois State University, 1972.

BERSCHEID, E., & WALSTER, E. Interpersonal.attraction. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

CONSOLI, J.1. The effects of waiting time onanxiety, nonverbal behavior, and verbal non-fluencies. Unpublished masters thesis, Depart-ment of Speech, Illinois State University, 1971.

HOYT, C. Test reliability estimated by analysis ofvariance,Psychometrika, 1941,6,153-160.

LARSEN, D.C. The effect of transfer-of-authorityleadership on satisfaction and group inter-action. Unpublished masters thesis, Departmentof Speech, Illinois State University, 1971.

LEATHERS, D.G. Process disruption and measure-ment in small group communication. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 1969,55,287-300.

LITTLEJOHN, S.W. A bibliography of studiesrelated to variables of source credibility. InN.A. Shearer (Ed.), Bibliographic annual inspeech communication. New York: SpeechCommunication Association, 1972.

McCROSKEY, J.C., & McCAIN, T.A. The mea-surement of interpersonal attraction. Paperpresented at the convention of the WesternSpeech Communication Association, Honolulu,1972.

McCROSKEY, J.C., & WRIGHT, D.W. The devel-opment of an instrument for measuring inter-action behavior in small groups. Speech Mono-graphs, 1971,38,335-340.

McCROSKEY, J.C., JENSEN, T., & VALENCIA,C. The measurement of the credibility of peersand spouses. Paper presented at the conventionof the International Communication Associa-tion, Montreal, 1973.

McMURRAY, Rl. A comparison of interactionprocess analysis and the interaction behaviormeasure. Paper presented to the convention ofthe International Communication Association,Atlanta, 1972.

QUIGGENS, J.G. The effects of high and lowcommunication apprehension on small groupmember's credibility, attraction, and inter-action. Unpublished masters thesis, Departmentof Speech, Illinois State University, 1972.

ROGERS, E.M. Communication strategiesfor fam-

52 McCroskey, Hamilton and Weiner

ily planning. New York: Free Press, 1973.ROGERS, E.M. & BHOWMIK, D.K. Homophily-

heterophily: Relational concepts for communi-cation research. Public Opinion Quarterly 1971,34,523.538.

ROGERS, E.M., & SHOEMAKER, F.F. Commu-nication of innovations. New York: Free Press,1971.

WAKSHLAG, J. The effect of camera angle andimage size on source credibility and inter-personal attraction. Unpublished masters thesis,

Department of Speech, Illinois State University,1973.

WHEELESS, L.R. The relationship of attitude andcredibility to comprehension. Paper presentedat the convention of the Speech Communica-tion Association, Chicago, 1972.

WHEELESS, L.R. The effects of attitude, credibil-ity and homophily on selective exposure toinformation. Paper presented at the conventionof the International Communication Associa-tion, Montreal, 1973.