402

Profile 36

Listening Styles Profile‐Revised (LSP‐R)

(Bodie, Worthington, & Gearhart, 2013; Watson, Barker, & Weaver, 1995)
Profiled by: Graham D. Bodie, PhD1 and Debra L. Worthington, PhD2
1
Meek School of Journalism and New Media, The University of Mississippi
2
Auburn University

­Construct
Listening styles were originally defined as “attitudes, beliefs, and predispositions about
the how, where, when, who, and what of the information reception and encoding pro-
cess” (Watson et al., 1995, p. 2). More recently, listening styles have been conceptual-
ized as representing various goals that listeners can attempt to achieve in a conversational
context (Bodie et al., 2013).

­Instrument Type
Self‐Report

­Description
The original Listening Styles Profile (LSP‐16; Watson et al., 1995) was developed to
capture individual variability in the tendency to listen in habitual ways. The four
­orientations measured by the original 16‐item scale (people, content, action, and time)
reflected preferences of listening with respect to how, where, when, with whom, and
what types of information people reported enjoying most. In this view, listening styles
are habitual reactions that individual listeners oriented toward, especially in novel
si­tuations (Imhof, 2004).
Following the discovery of psychometric issues with the LSP‐16 (Bodie & Worthington,
2010), Bodie et al. (2013) developed a revised, 24‐item measure (LSP‐R) that captures
four “goals that listeners have when engaged in situations that call them to be a particular

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

Edited by Debra L. Worthington and Graham D. Bodie.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 Listening Styles Profile‐Revised (LSP‐R) 403

kind of listener” (p. 86). Relational listening (RL) is a concern with and awareness of oth-
ers’ feelings and emotions. Analytical listening (AL) reflects an intentional focus on the
full message of a speaker prior to forming a judgment. Task‐oriented listening (TOL)
refers to a concern with the amount of time spent listening as well as a desire to interact
with focused speakers. Critical listening (CL) is a tendency to evaluate and critically
assess messages for accuracy and consistency. All items are assessed along 7‐point
Likert scaling.
More recently, a shortened version of the LSP‐R—the LSP‐R8—has been introduced
(Rinke & Moy, 2015).

­Administration
The LSP‐R is a self‐administered questionnaire that takes between 5 and 10 minutes to
complete. The items can be printed on paper or administered through an online survey
system.

­Scoring
There are six items for each of the four listening goals. Responses to each of the items
within a single factor are averaged, producing four scores per participant (1–7). No
known normative data exist to suggest standard cutoff values.

­Development
To classify general manners in which people prefer to listen, Watson et al. (1995)
p­roposed the construct of listening style and suggested four listening responses that
individuals naturally orient toward. The original Listening Styles Profile (LSP‐16) has
consistently produced inadequate reliability estimates, in the range of .50 to .60, and has
failed to factor appropriately, motivating the creation of a more stable instrument
(Bodie & Worthington, 2010; Bodie et al., 2013).
The LSP‐R includes 24 items that tap four factors: relational listening (RL), which is
concern and awareness of others’ feelings and emotions; analytical listening (AL), which
is attention to the full message of a speaker before coming to judgment; task‐oriented
listening (TOL), or disdain for listening to speakers who are lengthy in getting their
point across; and critical listening (CL), or focus on the accuracy and consistency of a
speaker’s message. In addition to relabeling the factors, the LSP‐R also shifts the general
conceptualization of listening styles from habitual reactions that remain relatively con-
stant across various listening situations to goals that are triggered by both individual
predispositions and elements of the listening situation.
Rinke and Moy (2015) introduced a short form of the LSP‐R. The shortened scale was
formed from the two highest loading items for each of the LSP‐R dimensions. Their
goal in developing and testing the LSP‐R8 was to generate a scale that would be more
suitable for use in general population surveys. As they note, the reduction from 24 to 8
items shortened completion time of the scale by 60%.
404 Graham D. Bodie and Debra L. Worthington

­Reliability
Studies have reported estimates of reliability for the LSP‐R. Internal consistency, as
e­stimated by Cronbach’s alpha, is consistently above .80 for all subscales (see Table P36.1).
In their two‐wave panel, Rinke and Moy (2015) reported lower internal consistency

Table P36.1 Standardized Cronbach’s alpha values and standardized regression weights for published
uses of the Revised Listening Styles Profile (LSP‐R)

Gearhart, Keaton,
Denham, and Keteyian, and
Bodie et al. (2013) Bodie (2014) Bodie (2014)

Item α T1 α T2 λ (T1/T2) α λ α λ

RL .82 .86 .88 .81

1 .67/.66 .69 .68
2 .69/.67 .80 .57
3 .75/.83 .84 .68
4 .51/.67 .57 .62
5 .64/.74 .68 .66
6 .68/.70 .73 .68

AL .91 .91 .93 .86

7 .81/.82 .84 .78
8 .86/.66 .78 .70
9 .83/.82 .77 .66
10 .62/68 .78 .69
11 .88/.88 .84 .76
12 .77/.88 .79 .68

TOL .88 .89 .88 .79

13 .59/.55 .75 .71
14 .74/.78 .70 .58
15 .71/.76 .74 .60
16 .80/.83 .75 .63
17 .71/.81 .73 .72
18 .67/.56 .74 .58

CL .86 .85 .91 .82

19 .72/.69 .74 .67
20 .79/.75 .87 .73
21 .74/.74 .84 .73
22 .76/80 .86 .67
23 .66/.72 .74 .72
24 .74/.79 .69 .49
 Listening Styles Profile‐Revised (LSP‐R) 405

e­ stimates on some dimensions between αt1 and αt2: analytical listening = .90, .88; critical
listening = .84, .82; relational listening = .79, .78; and task‐oriented listening = .71, .75. Bodie
et al. (2013) also reported evidence of test–retest reliability, r > .71, using a 14–45‐day inter-
val between scale administrations. Test–retest reliability estimates (at a 4‐week interval) of
the LSP‐R8 were lower: AL = .59; CL = .76; RL = .67; TOL = .65 (Rinke & Moy, 2015).

­Validity
Several studies have been conducted that build a validity portfolio for the LSP‐R. As
seen in Table P36.1, lambda estimates obtained from confirmatory factor analyses
­provide evidence that items are valid indicators of the appropriate factor. Model fit
statistics reported in these articles also are all within acceptable ranges (CFI > .90,
SRMR <. 08, RMSEA < .08), providing evidence of construct validity.
Bodie et al. (2013) reported evidence of convergent and discriminant validity by
showing the LSP‐R factors correlated appropriately with theoretically relevant
­variables, among them need for cognition, emotional contagion, need to evaluate,
empathy, extraversion, and normative information processing. Bivariate relations
between the revised listening styles and these other self‐report scales were in
p­redicted directions, and the association between the LSP‐R and other listening
c­onstructions refuted suggestions of construct proliferation (see Chapter 5). In
a­ddition, the four goals measured by the LSP‐R correlated as expected with the
LSP‐16 orientations (see Table P36.2).

­Sample Studies
A number of studies into individual listening style have been conducted. Most research-
ers conducting these early studies focused on examining the relation between listening
styles (as measured by the LSP‐16) and personality‐related characteristics, among

Table P36.2 Bivariate correlations between LSP‐16 and LSP‐R reported in Bodie et al. (2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. People –
2. Action .04 –
3. Content .24** .29** –
4. Time .00 .32** .09 –
5. Relational .71** −.05 .19** −.04 –
6. Analytic .32** −.01 .30** −.03 .39** –
7. Critical .11* .57** .41** .06 −.01 .13** –
8. Task‐oriented .05 .65** .09 .35** −.13** −.04 .29**

Note: * p < .05.

** p < .01 level; N = 409.
Source: Bodie and Worthington (2010). Reproduced with permission of Taylor & Francis.
406 Graham D. Bodie and Debra L. Worthington

them: communication anxiety, conversational sensitivity, empathic response style,

extroversion, psychoticism, neuroticism, need for cognition, receiver apprehension,
temp­ erament, and type‐A personality (Chesebro, 1999; Salisbury & Chen, 2007;
Sargent, Fitch‐Hauser, & Weaver, 1997; Villaume & Bodie, 2007; Weaver, 1998; Weaver
& Kirtley, 1995; Weaver, Watson, & Barker, 1996).
A few studies, however, have examined individual listening style in specified s­ ituations.
For example, in her study of listening and juror decision making, Worthington (2001)
reported that highly people‐oriented mock jurors found plaintiffs less at fault, whereas
time‐oriented listeners awarded higher damages. Imhof (2004) investigated the stability
of individual listening profiles across four listening contexts (studying, family, friends,
and work) with differing goals. Her study suggested that individual listening, as meas-
ured by the LSP‐16, varied with the context. This study suggests that listening styles are
more akin to goals rather than habitual responses, a finding recently confirmed with the
LSP‐R (see below).
Although these studies contributed to our understanding of listening style, their
f­indings must be viewed with caution as the LSP‐16 has consistently exhibited problems
with its psychometric properties. It was these problems that led to a reexamination and
revision of the scale (Bodie & Worthington, 2010; Bodie et al., 2013). Although some
overlap between the two scales has been reported, they are distinctly different—the
LSP‐R offers an improved framework for conceptualizing listening preferences (see
Bodie et al., 2013). Because of its newness, the LSP‐R has not been used as extensively, as
initial studies have primarily focused on building a validity portfolio for the measure.
An important piece of the validity portfolio for the LSP‐R are findings reported by
Gearhart, Denham, and Bodie (2014). The authors, reflecting Imhof’s (2004) findings
that used the LSP‐16, provided evidence that the LSP‐R orientations are best conceptu-
alized as situationally variable goals rather than habitualized orientations. In their study,
US undergraduate students were asked to respond to the LSP‐R and then recall a conver-
sation in which they were primarily enacting a listening role. After describing their inter-
action, participants answered two sets of items. The first set included 12 items that
reflected each of the LSP‐R factors (three items for each orientation). For instance, par-
ticipants were asked how important it was (from 1 = not at all to 7 = very important) in
the recalled conversation to “understand how others were feeling” (RL), “remain non-
judgmental” (AL), “help others to get to the point quickly” (TOL), and “find mistakes”
(CL). The second set included 43 items that assessed various characteristics of the
recalled conversation. Not only did participants “switch” their “­primary listening style”
after recalling a particular conversation, but a discriminant function analysis showed
that the measures of conversational characteristics more accurately classified partici-
pants’ choice of situational listening style than did their general LSP‐R scores. Their
study also questioned whether individuals can be categorized as holding a primary style
at all (something that was questionable from the beginning of the LSP‐16). Approximately
50% of participants in the Gearhart et al. study held multiple, primary LSP‐R listening
styles, and the remaining participants split between holding one primary style or no
primary style. Specifically, only 105 out of 382 participants (27.5%) could be said to have
a primary “listening style”: RL (n = 33; 8.6%), AL (n = 20; 5.2%), TOL (n = 33; 8.6%), and
CL (n = 19; 5%). A majority (n = 184; 48.2%) were classified as reporting multiple primary
LSP‐R listening styles, and 93 (24.3%) reported no primary style.
Keaton, Keteyian, and Bodie (2014) found further validity evidence in their study of
the relationship between the LSP‐R and communication preferences (as measured
 Listening Styles Profile‐Revised (LSP‐R) 407

by the Communication Components inventory). For example, bivariate correlations

revealed that relational listening was associated with interpersonal (.61) and linguistic
communicator component preferences (.48), analytical listening was positively related
to auditory (.41) and logical components (.31), critical listening had significant correla-
tions with logical (.42) and visual (.42) components, and task‐oriented listening was
related to logical (.35) and linguistic (.24) components.

­Critique
The LSP‐R offers two significant contributions to listening research. First, as men-
tioned, it provides an improved framework for investigating individual listening pref-
erences. At the same time, initial research with the measure reaffirms the importance
of contextual and situational cues on preference choice. Bodie et al. (2013) claim that
the LSP‐R taps into “various goals that listeners have when engaged in situations that
call them to be a particular kind of listener” (p. 86). They question the long‐held belief
by many users of the LSP‐16 that listening style is trait‐like and habitual—and, subse-
quently, relatively invariant.
Despite its relative newness, there is a strong validity and reliability portfolio for the meas-
ure. However, research in this area can and should be expanded; additional studies examin-
ing the nature and extent of an individual’s willingness to shift preferences are e­specially
needed. Finally, research into potential cultural differences is also needed. Social expecta-
tions of a listening situation may lead individuals from differing cultures and countries to
prefer d­ifferent styles of listening. Understanding these differences may help researchers
better identify the trait and state characteristics of listening style preferences.

References
Bodie, G. D., & Worthington, D. L. (2010). Revisiting the Listening Styles Profile (LSP‐16):
A confirmatory factor analytic approach to scale validation and reliability estimation.
International Journal of Listening, 24, 69–88. doi:10.1080/10904011003744516
Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D. L., & Gearhart, C. C. (2013). The Revised Listening Styles
Profile (LSP‐R): Development and validation. Communication Quarterly, 61, 72–90.
doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.720343
Chesebro, J. L. (1999). The relationship between listening styles and conversational
sensitivity. Communication Research Reports, 16, 233–238.
doi:10.1080/08824099909388722
Gearhart, C. C., Denham, J. D., & Bodie, G. D. (2014). Listening as a goal directed activity.
Western Journal of Communication, 78, 668–684. doi:10.1080/10570314.2014.910888
Imhof, M. (2004). Who are we as we listen? Individual listening profiles in varying contexts.
International Journal of Listening, 18, 36–46. doi:0.1080/10904018.2004.10499061
Keaton, S. A., Keteyian, R. V., & Bodie, G. D. (2014). Bivariate and multivariate associations
between trait listening goals and trait communicator preferences. International Journal
of Listening, 28, 82–97. doi:10.1080/10904018.2014.880868
Rinke, E., & Moy, P. (2015, Sept. 14). Proposal for the 2016 pilot study: Individual listening
styles: Short Form of Listening Styles Profile‐Revised (LSP‐R8). American National Election
408 Graham D. Bodie and Debra L. Worthington

Studies forum. Retrieved from http://forum.electionstudies.org/proposal‐

for‐the‐2016‐pilot‐study‐individual‐listening‐styles‐short‐form‐of‐listening‐styles‐profile‐
revised‐lsp‐r8/
Salibury, J. R., & Chen, G.‐M. (2007). An examination of the relationship between conversation
sensitivity and listening styles. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16, 251–262.
Sargent, S. L., Fitch‐Hauser, M., & Weaver, J. B., III. (1997). A listening styles profile of the
type‐A personality. International Journal of Listening, 11, 1–14.
Villaume, W. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2007). Discovering the listener within us: The impact of
trait‐like personality variables and communicator styles on preferences for listening
style. International Journal of Listening, 21, 102–123.
Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., & Weaver, J. B., III. (1995). The listening styles profile
(LSP‐16): Development and validation of an instrument to assess four listening styles.
International Journal of Listening, 9, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10904018.1995.10499138
Weaver, J. B., III. (1998). Personality and self‐perceptions about communication. In
J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and
personality (pp. 95–117). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Weaver, J. B., III, & Kirtley, M. D. (1995). Listening styles and empathy. Southern Journal of
Speech Communication, 60, 131–140. doi:10.1080/10417949509372970
Weaver, J. B., III, Watson, K. W., & Barker, L. L. (1996). Individual differences in listening
style: Do you hear what I hear? Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 381–387.
Worthington, D. L. (2001). Exploring juror’s listening processes: The effect of listening
style preference on juror decision making. International Journal of Listening, 15, 20–35.
doi:10.1080/10904018.2001.10499043

Further Reading
Worthington, D. L. (2003). Exploring the relationship between listening style preference
and personality traits: Temperament. International Journal of Listening, 17, 68–87.
doi:10.1080/10904018.2003.10499056
Worthington, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relationship between listening style preference
and personality traits: Verbal aggressiveness. International Journal of Listening. 19, 3–11.
doi:10.1080/10904018.2005.10499069
Worthington, D. L. (2008). Exploring the relationship between listening style preference
and need for cognition. International Journal of Listening, 22, 46–58.
doi:10.1080/10904010701802154

­Scale
­ he Listening Styles Profile Revised (LSP‐R) (Bodie, Worthington, & Gearhart, 2013;
T
Watson, Barker, & Weaver, 1995)

Below are several items that people use to describe themselves as a listener. We would
like you to assess how each statement applies to you by marking your level of agreement/
disagreement with each item. The stronger you disagree with a statement, the lower the
number you will circle. The stronger you agree with a statement, the higher the number
you will circle. Please do not think of any specific listening situation but of your general
ways of listening—how you typically listen in most situations.
 Listening Styles Profile‐Revised (LSP‐R) 409

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Somewhat Disagree
4 = Unsure
5 = Somewhat Agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly Agree

RL = Relational Listening
1) When listening to others, I am mainly concerned with how they are feeling.
2) I listen to understand the emotions and mood of the speaker.
3) When listening to others, it is important to understand the feelings of the speaker.
4) I listen primarily to build and maintain relationships with others.
5) I enjoy listening to others because it allows me to connect with them.
6) When listening to others, I focus on understanding the feelings behind words.
AL = Analytical Listening
7) I wait until all the facts are presented before forming judgments and opinions.
8) I fully listen to what a person has to say before forming any opinions.
9) I tend to withhold judgment about another’s ideas until I have heard everything
they have to say.
10) When listening to others, I attempt to withhold making an opinion until I’ve heard
their entire message.
11) When listening to others, I consider all sides of the issue before responding.
12) To be fair to others, I fully listen to what they have to say before making judgments.
TOL = Task‐Oriented Listening
13) I am impatient with people who ramble on during conversations.
14) I find it difficult to listen to people who take too long to get their ideas across.
15) I get frustrated when people get off topic during a conversation.
16) When listening to others, I become impatient when they appear to be wasting time.
17) I prefer speakers who quickly get to the point.
18) When listening to others, I appreciate speakers who give brief, to‐the‐point
presentations.
CL = Critical Listening
19) I often catch errors in other speakers’ logic.
20) I tend to naturally notice errors in what other speakers’ say.
21) When listening to others, I focus on any inconsistencies and/or errors in what’s
being said.
22) I have a talent for catching inconsistencies in what a speaker says.
23) When listening to others, I notice contradictions in what they say.
24) Good listeners catch discrepancies in what people say.

Note: Labels should be removed and items randomized prior to administration. The first
two items under each subscale comprise the LSP‐8.