Emotional Contagion in the Classroom

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vcol20
Download by: [Florida International University] Date: 26 September 2017, At: 06:49
College Teaching
ISSN: 8756-7555 (Print) 1930-8299 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20
Emotional Contagion in the Classroom: The Impact
of Teacher Satisfaction and Confirmation on
Perceptions of Student Nonverbal Classroom
Behavior
Marian L. Houser & Caroline Waldbuesser
To cite this article: Marian L. Houser & Caroline Waldbuesser (2017) Emotional
Contagion in the Classroom: The Impact of Teacher Satisfaction and Confirmation on
Perceptions of Student Nonverbal Classroom Behavior, College Teaching, 65:1, 1-8, DOI:
10.1080/87567555.2016.1189390
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1189390
Published online: 29 Jun 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 302
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Emotional Contagion in the Classroom: The Impact of Teacher Satisfaction and
Confirmation on Perceptions of Student Nonverbal Classroom Behavior
Marian L. Housera and Caroline Waldbuesserb
a
Texas State University; b
Ohio University
ABSTRACT
Teachers appreciate nonverbally responsive students, but what is missing is an understanding of the
direct influence of teachers’ self-perceptions on their perceptions of how engaged their students are
in class. Using the emotional contagion theory as a lens, this study examines the premise that
satisfied instructors expect students to mirror their own behaviors in the classroom through being
nonverbally responsive. Results of the regression model confirm that teachers’ perceptions of their
own confirmation behaviors most strongly predict their perceptions of how nonverbally responsive
students are in class. Thus, instructors who are more expressive will likely induce students to be
more expressive, leading them to determine their students are being more nonverbally responsive.
Further, expressive instructors will be more attuned to student interaction because they may
subconsciously expect students to mirror their actions through nonverbal behaviors—they will look
for it. Additionally, satisfied instructors view their students as satisfied and look for these feelings to
be exposed via nonverbal response behaviors. Implications for teacher training and mentoring
programs are discussed.
KEYWORDS
Emotional contagion;
instructor satisfaction;
satisfaction with students;
student nonverbal
responsiveness; teacher
confirmation
Instructors frequently favor one class over another with
little explanation for the imbalance. Dornyei and
Murphy (2003) sought to understand why “some classes
feel ‘good’ and some ‘bad’ at different times or all the
time” (p. 4.) and argued that classroom dynamics, student-teacher interactions, and a “cohesive-performance
effect” (Dornyei 1997) motivated students to perform,
and teachers and students alike to gain stronger overall
satisfaction. Ultimately, the level of classroom involvement can shape not only student perceptions of their
instructors, but also instructors’ perceptions of students
and their own teaching (Goodboy and Myers 2008; Malachowski and Martin 2011).
Specifically, previous research has explored how
teacher classroom confirmation behaviors are related to
increased student classroom involvement (Campbell,
Eichhorn, Basch, and Wolf 2009; Goldman and Goodboy
2014; Goodboy and Myers 2008). In addition, teacher
perceptions of their personal confirmation behaviors
correlated with students’ nonverbal responsiveness
(NVR) behaviors (Malachowski and Martin 2011). Even
more important, perhaps, is the finding that instructors’
perceptions of their students’ NVR related to their personal satisfaction with the class and their levels of
self-efficacy (Mottet 2000; Mottet and Beebe 2006;
Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Medlock 2004a).
Teachers appreciate nonverbally responsive students,
but what is missing is an understanding of the direct
influence of teachers’ self-perceptions on their perceptions of how engaged their students are in class. In other
words, teachers are working very hard in their classes to
connect with students (e.g., confirm them) and are satisfied with their teaching, but does this, in turn, predict
their perceptions of student nonverbal behavior? Does
how I perceive my own teaching impact how I perceive
my students? Using the emotional contagion theory as
an interpretive lens, this study examines the premise that
satisfied instructors expect students to mirror their own
behaviors in the classroom through being nonverbally
responsive. Understanding this relationship is important,
as teaching does not occur in a vacuum, and instructors’
classroom experiences influence how they see their
students.
This study will first examine previous scholarship on
emotional contagion, teacher confirmation, and student
nonverbal responsiveness. The relationships between the
variables will then be examined, followed by an analysis of
the predictive influence of teachers’ personal perceptions
CONTACT Marian L. Houser [email protected] Department of Communication Studies, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX
78666, USA.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
COLLEGE TEACHING
2017, VOL. 65, NO. 1, 1–8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1189390
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017
in the classroom. Finally, implications for future research
and the study’s limitations will be discussed.
Literature review
Emotional contagion
Social science scholars have studied how emotions can
affect other people (Darwin 1872; Hatfield, Cacioppo,
and Rapson 1994; Howard and Gengler 2001). Darwin
(1872) first examined what caused humans to display
certain emotions in various contexts. Hatfield and colleagues (1994) then sought to understand how people
influenced each other’s emotions and, as a result,
advanced the emotional contagion theory. They argued
emotions were either negative or positive responses to
stimuli; sometimes these responses were contagious. At
the individual level, scholars have discovered people
often “catch” or mimic the emotions of others (Hsee,
Hatfield, and Carlson 1990). Specifically, they tend to
copy the emotions of trusted or familiar individuals
more readily (Howard and Gengler 2001).
Emotional contagion theory also explains people are
either transmitters or catchers (Hatfield et al. 1994; Verbeke 1997). Transmitters in the service industry, for
example, positively influence customer emotions, leading
to increased sales (Verbeke 1997). In contrast, catchers
appear to have both positive and negative implications
(Miller, Stiff, and Ellis 1988; Verbeke 1997). In the classroom, this could translate to positive teachers “catching”
from responsive students. Research suggests contagion
also occurs when the receiver reacts negatively to the initiator’s emotional displays (Hatfield et al. 1994). Thus, if
one person displays angry emotions, it influences the
other person to back away or leave. Hatfield et al. (1994)
referred to this contagion reaction as “complementary”
or “countercontagion” (p. 5). Overall, emotional contagion is affected by a variety of stimuli and contexts, forcing it to be a complex phenomenon. This theory
provides a useful lens to examine the relationship
between instructor perceptions of student nonverbal
responsiveness and self-perceptions of their confirmation
behaviors, since student nonverbal responsiveness is
closely linked with emotional displays in the classroom
(Jenkins and Deno 1969; Klein 1971; Malachowski and
Martin 2011).
Over the years, emotional contagion has been examined in the instructional context (Bakker 2005; Wang
and Schrodt 2010). Bakker (2005), for example, concluded that if a teacher had positive experiences at work,
their students would also have more positive experiences
in class. In contrast, emotional contagion was reported
to have no influence on how students perceived
instructor immediacy or their affect for instructors
(Wang and Schrodt 2010): Specifically, this study examined whether emotional contagion would influence
students’ sense of liking for the instructor when students
perceived them as more nonverbally immediate. Emotional contagion, however, was found to have no influence on the relationship between students’ perceptions
of instructor immediacy and student affect toward the
instructor (Wang and Schrodt, 2010).
This curious disparity leads us to question the impact
of the emotional contagion of instructors’ perceptions of
their students based upon their own confirmation behaviors of them.
Teacher confirmation
Teachers frequently display their positive emotions
through their confirmation behaviors toward students
(Ellis 2000; Goodboy and Myers 2008; Malachowksi and
Martin 2011). Ellis (2000) defined teacher confirmation
as “the transactional process by which teachers communicate to students that they are endorsed, recognized,
and acknowledged as valuable, significant individuals”
(p. 266). These behaviors have been linked with classroom outcomes from student learning and motivation to
instructor perceptions of student behaviors. (Ellis 2000;
Goodboy and Myers 2008; Schrodt and Finn 2011; Malachowski and Martin 2011). When students perceived
that their instructors displayed more confirming behaviors, it has been positively related to their affective learning, cognitive learning, satisfaction with the class, and
state motivation (Ellis 2000; Goodboy and Myers 2008).
Further, research has shown that students felt more supported and understood in classes where the teacher was
more invested in them (Goldman and Goodboy 2014;
Schrodt and Finn 2011). Overall, this instructor behavior
has helped students to have more positive experiences in
the classroom (Goldman and Goodboy 2014; Goodboy
and Myers 2008).
In addition, teacher confirmation has been found to
directly impact student classroom behaviors (Campbell
et al. 2009; Goldman and Goodboy 2014; Goodboy and
Myers 2008). For example, researchers concluded that if
students perceived that instructors displayed moderate
levels of confirmation, they communicated more relational, participatory, and functional messages (Goodboy
and Myers 2008). In addition to this, teacher confirmation also reduced negative student behaviors, such as
excuse-making and challenging instructors.
Though most research has focused on student perceptions of teacher confirmation and their own classroom
communication, Malachowski and Martin (2011) investigated how instructor perceptions of their personal
2 M. L. HOUSER AND C. WALDBUESSER
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017
confirmation behaviors with students related to their
perceptions of students’ communication during class;
they reported a positive relationship between their confirmation behaviors and perceptions of student NVR.
Plax, Kearney, and Down (1986) argued that teacher perceptions of their own behaviors “are more likely to affect
their own perceptions of how they feel towards students
and teaching” (p. 381). Therefore, it is important to
understand the instructors’ perceptions of themselves in
the classroom, including their own confirmation of
students.
Student nonverbal responsiveness
The emotional contagion theory can be used to explain
student responses to teacher confirmation behaviors. If
students find instructors are more positive and complimentary, it could lead them to mimic the behaviors
through their nonverbal response reactions. Mottet
(2000) defined student nonverbal responsiveness (NVR)
as student use of nonverbal cues in the classroom that
indicates involvement and listening. Student nonverbal
responsiveness is part of the overall nonverbal immediacy construct, but it differs as it focuses only on behavioral responses rather than including the initial
behaviors in interaction (Mottet, 2000). Overall, NVR is
important to examine within the classroom due to the
influence on the communication of the instructor as well
as the engagement of students in the classroom (Malachowski and Martin 2011; Mottet 2000; Mottet and
Beebe 2006; Mottet et al. 2004a; Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld,
and Paulsel 2004b; Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Paulsel
2005).
Several studies have concluded that teacher interactions, self-perceptions, and satisfaction in the classroom
are correlated with student NVR (Jenkins and Deno
1969; Klein 1971; Malachowski and Martin 2011; Mottet
2000; Mottet and Beebe 2006; Mottet, et al. 2004a; Mottet, et al. 2004b; Mottet et al. 2005). Particularly, student
nonverbal feedback has been shown to predict how a
teacher perceives his or her own teaching within the
classroom (Jenkins and Deno 1969; Mottet 2000). When
researchers examined student positive feedback in the
classroom, they found that if students engaged in more
positive nonverbal response behaviors, instructors felt
that their teaching was effective in the classroom, and
the students achieved increased levels of cognitive learning (Jenkins and Deno 1969).
Student NVR has also been linked with how a teacher
viewed the students in the classroom (Jenkins and Deno
1969; Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, and Paulsel 2004b). Past
scholars concluded that when students utilized positive
feedback behaviors, the teachers felt that the students
wanted to contribute more in the classroom (Jenkins and
Deno 1969). Later, researchers extended this concept to
find that if students used more nonverbal response
behaviors it was related to increased levels of instructor
affect toward students (Mottet and Beebe 2006; Mottet
et al. 2004b).
Student-teacher nonverbal interactions have also been
related to teacher classroom behavior Klein 1971; Malachowski and Martin 2011). Earlier research on student
feedback in the classroom reported that if students used
more positive/negative NVR, teachers interacted more
positively/negatively with them (Klein 1971). Additionally, if students were more nonverbally responsive, it correlated with an increased instructor willingness to
comply with their demands in the classroom (Mottet
et al. 2004b). Student NVR has not only accounted for
how teachers behaved within the classroom, but a relationship has also been established with student grades.
Mottet and Beebe (2006) found that if a student was
more nonverbally responsive in class and more involved
in classroom interactions (Frymier 2005), it was related
to higher grades on oral assignments.
Furthermore, student NVR has been shown to influence teacher outcomes (Jenkins and Deno 1969; Mottet
2000; Mottet et al. 2004a). Specifically, previous researchers concluded that if students used increased levels of
NVR, it increased instructor self-efficacy within the
classroom (Mottet et al. 2004a). Additionally, student
NVR can increase instructor job satisfaction (Jenkins
and Deno 1969; Mottet et al. 2004a) such that if students
utilized more positive feedback with instructors in the
classroom, they enjoyed teaching more (Jenkins and
Deno 1969). Mottet (2000) concluded that when students in televised classes provided more nonverbal feedback, it not only made the class more enjoyable for the
instructor but also increased the likelihood that instructors would teach the same class again in the future.
Instructor satisfaction
Understanding the relationships between teacher confirmation, student nonverbal responsiveness, and teacher
satisfaction can help explain the interactions between
students and teachers in the classroom. Satisfaction is
also a factor that can help explain the mirroring depicted
in the emotional contagion theory (Homburg and Stock
2004). Past studies tell us perceptions of student NVR is
significantly related to teacher satisfaction in the classroom (Jenkins and Deno 1969; Mottet 2000; Mottet et al.
2004a). Mottet et al. (2004a) found that if instructors’
perceptions of student NVR increased, so did their own
levels of satisfaction within the class. Although past
research has not examined how teacher perceptions of
COLLEGE TEACHING 3
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017
their own confirmation behaviors influence their levels of
satisfaction, research has revealed a relationship between
student satisfaction and instructor confirmation behaviors (Goodboy and Myers 2008). Thus, the relationships
between instructor behavioral self-perceptions, student
behaviors, and satisfaction should be better understood.
Plax et al. (1986) defined two forms of teacher satisfaction in the classroom: satisfaction with teaching/
instruction and satisfaction with students. Past research
on student NVR has examined overall instructor satisfaction but failed to separate teaching from student satisfaction, which are very different (Jenkins and Deno 1969;
Mottet 2000; Mottet et al. 2004a). Therefore, an examination of this gap in the literature can lead to a clearer
understanding of the impact of teacher perceptions in
the classroom. As a simple relationship between instructor perception of student NVR and overall satisfaction
has been reported (Mottet 2000), it can be assumed that
teaching and student satisfaction, se parately, will be correlated with instructor perceptions of student NVR as
well. To examine these relationships, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Instructor teaching satisfaction and satisfaction with
students will be positively related to perceptions of student NVR in the classroom.
The relationship between instructor perception of
their own confirmation behaviors and satisfaction in the
classroom has not been examined in past research. As
Plax et al. (1986), reported, it is teacher self-perceptions
that are more likely to impact how they feel about their
students and their job. In order to examine these relationships, the following research question is posited:
RQ1: Does a relationship exist between instructors’ perceptions of their own classroom confirmation behaviors
and their teaching satisfaction, and satisfaction with students in the classroom?
Previous research has demonstrated a link between
instructor self-perceptions of confirmation behaviors
and their perceptions of student NVR in the classroom
(Malachowski and Martin 2011) and Mottet (2000) concluded that student NVR and satisfaction were significantly related. While a positive relationship has been
demonstrated between the variables, the studies do not
fully examine how the two components of instructor satisfaction (teaching and students) and perceptions of their
own confirming behaviors impact their perceptions of
student nonverbal behaviors in the classroom. The emotional contagion theory can be used as a framework to
help explain the connections between these variables. If
an instructor is more confirming with students and more
satisfied, they may expect students to mimic their
behaviors through their nonverbal responsiveness in
class, and they will be more attuned to student nonverbal
behaviors in the classroom. To gain a better understanding of how satisfaction and teacher confirmation behaviors influence instructor perceptions of NVR, the
following hypothesis and research question are
proposed:
H2: Instructor perceptions of classroom confirmation
behaviors will be positively correlated with his/her perceptions of student NVR in the classroom.
RQ2: How much variance in instructor perceptions of
student NVR is predicted by instructor perceptions of
his/her own confirmation, teaching satisfaction, and student satisfaction?
Method
Participants and procedures
Convenience and snowball sampling were used to collect
information from 267 college instructors from colleges
across the United States during the middle portion of the
semester. The sample included three groups: 51 adjuncts,
55 GTAs, and 161 full time instructors between the ages
of 21–79. There were 177 females total and 90 males,
with varied ethnicities. Due to the imbalance of men and
women in the study, an initial independent samples ttest was conducted to determine whether differences
existed in perceptions of teacher confirmation, student
nonverbal responsiveness, teacher satisfaction with
teaching and satisfaction with students. No significant
differences were discovered for teacher sex and any of
these examined variables.
After university IRB approval, participants were sent a
link to an online consent form and anonymous survey
containing 50 items to assess their perceptions of student
NVR in the classroom, perceptions of their own teacher
confirmation behaviors with students, satisfaction with
the class (students and teaching), and level of emotional
contagion. The survey asked them to think of the first
class they taught that week and answer the questions
based on that specific class. Demographic questions
included participant sex, ethnicity, age, teaching level,
department, and years of experience.
Instruments
Teacher confirmation
To measure teacher confirmation, an adapted version of
Ellis’s (2000) Teacher Confirmation scale was used. The
original scale directed the questions toward students’
perceptions of classroom instructors. Questions were
4 M. L. HOUSER AND C. WALDBUESSER
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017
adapted to reflect teachers’ perceptions of their confirmation behaviors with students in the specific class. Instructors responded to the 13-item, 5-point Likert scale with
responses ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) and. The adapted items contained 13
items, including: “In this class, I communicated that I
was interested in student learning” and “In this class, I
made an effort to get to know students.” The original
scale reported high reliability, with multiple studies
reporting a .95 alpha (Ellis 2000; Goodboy and Myers
2008). Reliability of the adapted scale was a D .80.
Student nonverbal responsiveness
The Student Nonverbal Responsiveness scale developed
by Malachowski and Martin (2011) was used to measure
instructor perceptions of student nonverbal response
behaviors in the classroom. Questions were adapted to
reflect behaviors of students in the specific class instructors were asked to think back to. The measure was taken
from Mottet’s (2000) Student Nonverbal Visual and
Audio Responsive measure. Questions solicited
responses on an 8-item, 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Items
included “In this class, my students nodded their head
while I was teaching” and “In this class, my students
tried to sit towards the front of the room while I was
teaching.” Malachowski and Martin (2011) reported an
alpha reliability of .83. Alpha reliability in the current
study was a D .83.
Teacher satisfaction
To measure the instructors’ satisfaction in the classroom,
the Teacher Satisfaction Scale developed by Plax et al.
(1986) was used. The questions were adapted to measure
instructor satisfaction with the specific class for which
they completed the survey. The scale included six total
items consisting of subscales: teacher satisfaction with
their own teaching and satisfaction with students in the
classroom. Three sets of 5-point Likert items were
included. The first set ranged from 1 (Never) to 2 (Always)
and include the questions “Have you ever wanted to quit
teaching this class?” and “In general, are students cooperative in this class?.” The second set ranged from 1 (Very dissatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied) for the questions:
“Everything considered, how satisfied are you with teaching this specific class of students?”; “How satisfied are you
with the general level of students’ abilities in this class?”;
and “In general, how satisfied are you with the motivation
of the students in this class?” The last 5-point Likert set
included the question, “If you could choose again, would
you still teach this specific group of students?” Answers
ranged from 1 (Definitely not) to 5 (Definitely yes). Previous alpha reliabilities of .76 and .95 were reported (Plax,
et al., 1986). The current alpha reliability was a D .84 for
overall teacher satisfaction. The teaching satisfaction
subscale reported a D .76, while the student satisfaction
subscale had a reliability of a D .77.
Results
Data were collected from instructors at varying levels
(Assistant/Associate/Full Professor; Adjunct/Per Course
Instructor; Graduate Teaching Assistant), thus participant
responses for the three groups were compared on all
outcome variables. Participants’ perceptions of student
nonverbal responsiveness [F(2, 266) D 2.44, p < .09], their
own confirmation behaviors [F(3, 266) D .39, p < .68],
and teacher satisfaction [F(2, 266) D 2.59, p < .08] were
compared across the three groups via one-way ANOVA.
No significant differences were discovered between the
groups, and therefore all the groups were combined for
analyses. Correlations and multiple linear regression (see
table 1) were utilized to examine the hypotheses and
research questions.
The first hypothesis predicted instructor perceptions of
student NVR and overall teacher satisfaction, teaching satisfaction, satisfaction with students, and perceptions of confirming behaviors would be positively correlated. Results
from the Pearson Correlations supported this hypothesis
for all four variables: overall satisfaction (r D .49, p < .000),
teaching satisfaction (r D .44, p < .000), satisfaction with
students in class (r D .45, p < .000) and teacher confirmation (r D .45, p < .000).
Research question one explored the relationship
between instructor perceptions of his/her own confirmation behaviors and overall teacher satisfaction, satisfaction with students, and satisfaction with teaching.
Pearson Correlations revealed significant positive relationships between teacher perceptions of his/her own
confirmation behaviors, satisfaction with his/her students (r D .18, p < .01), and satisfaction with his/her
own teaching (r D .20, p < .001).
Hypothesis two examined the relationship between
instructor confirmation behaviors and perceptions of
student nonverbal responsiveness in the classroom. Pearson Correlation revealed a significant positive relationship (r D .45, p < .000).
Table 1. Correlations between all variables.
1 2 3 45
1. Student NVR 1
2. Teacher confirmation .446 1
3. Total Satisfaction .488 .213 1
4. Teaching Satisfaction .442 .203 .912 1
5. Student Satisfaction .446 .183 .907 .654 1

p < .01, p < .001
COLLEGE TEACHING 5
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017
Finally, research question two explored the variance
in instructor perceptions of student NVR predicted by
personal perceptions of classroom confirmation behaviors toward students, satisfaction with their teaching,
and satisfaction with students in the class. This was
tested using a multiple regression (see table 2) and
revealed 36.1% of the variance [F(3, 266) D 49.61,
p < .000] in instructor perceptions of student NVR was
predicted by confirmation, and satisfaction with teaching
and students in class. All three independent variables significantly predicted instructor perceptions of NVR
responsiveness, with teacher confirmation having the
highest predictive power (b D .36, t D 7.11, p < .000),
followed by instructor satisfaction with students
(b D .24, t D 3.73, p < .000), and lastly teaching satisfaction (b D .21, t D 3.21, p < .002).
Discussion
Via an emotional contagion lens, the goal of this study
was to investigate the power of instructor self-perceptions
on perceptions of student mirroring responses or nonverbal responsiveness in the classroom. Teachers spend years
preparing to teach, in hopes of having a responsive class
full of students who match their own interest and energy.
While much has been studied about what teachers “think
of students” and vice versa, the combined influence of
teacher self-perceptions of classroom behaviors and feelings of perceived student behavior is new. Knowledge
from this study suggests instructors as well as their
instructional mentors in teacher training programs could
profit from an emphasis on understanding the power of
self-perceptions when teaching.
The concept of “metacommunication” (communicating about communication) may also play a significant
role here. Bateson (1972), coined this term to describe
the nonverbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, etc., that carry unstated meanings. Instructional
communication scholars (Wilmot and Nimmo 1980)
explain that instructors think about what they are saying
and doing (self-thought). In the current study, this metacommunication may develop self-perceptions and, in
turn, predict interpretations of students’ NVR. Thus,
teachers who view their own classroom behavior a
certain way expect students will mirror it; they communicate intrapersonally to understand the metacommunicative influences on their interpretation of student
nonverbal behaviors. This reflects the emotional contagion of teaching and should be understood if instructors
hope to understand and create meaningful relationships
with students. Results of the regression model confirm
this. Emotional contagion informs us that people catch
the emotions of those around them (Hatfield et al. 1994).
In this model, teachers’ perceptions of their own confirmation behaviors most strongly predict their perceptions
of how nonverbally responsive students are in class.
Thus, instructors who are more expressive will likely
induce students to be more expressive, leading them to
determine their students are being more nonverbally
response. Further, expressive instructors will be more
attuned to student interaction because they may subconsciously expect students to mirror their actions through
nonverbal behaviors; they will look for it. This dovetails
nicely with instructor feelings of satisfaction with teaching and their students. If instructors are satisfied, they
perceive their students are as well; teachers look for students’ feelings of satisfaction to be exposed via nonverbal
response behaviors (Jenkins and Deno 1969; Mottet
2000; Mottet et al. 2004a). Although this study does not
establish causal relationships, results do indicate that it is
a plausible hypothesis that should be investigated in the
future. It would seem a happier classroom exists with
both student and teacher on the same emotional page.
Implications, limitations, and future research
Conclusions from this study create a further understanding of the importance of instructor confirmation
behaviors and student NVR in the classroom. The current findings help explain the influence of satisfaction
and instructor perceptions of his/her confirmation
behaviors on how they “see” student NVR. Understanding these links can help us explain the experiences of
teachers in the classroom overall. Past research has
extensively examined students’ perceptions of teachers
in the classroom, but less research has focused on the
experiences of the instructors. Plax et al. (1986) point
out the importance of instructor perceptions, as it not
only shapes the instructors experience, but also the students’ experiences. Therefore, this study furthers our
understanding of what influences the instructor perceptions of students, which can enlighten future researchers
on what instructors expect from students; instructors
who perceive they utilize more confirmation behaviors
expect greater levels of reciprocation. If students do not
mimic their behaviors, it can work to explain why
Table 2. Multiple regression analysis for instructor confirmation,
teaching satisfaction, and student satisfaction predicting student
NVR.
Variable B SEB b
Student NVR ¡.145 2.63
Instructor Confirmation .55 .15 .24
Teaching Satisfaction .46 .14 .21
Student Satisfaction .31 .04 .36

p < .01, p < .001
6 M. L. HOUSER AND C. WALDBUESSER
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017
instructors have negative experiences with students,
which can result in a more negative classroom environment for everyone.
Further, the adapted measure of teacher confirmation
(Ellis 2000) opens the door for future research on
instructor perceptions. The scale was altered to reflect
instructor perceptions of their own confirmation behaviors, which can allow for investigations for the relationships of a myriad of student outcomes.
There are, of course, limitations with this study. For
instance, we only looked at the perceptions of instructors
at the college level rather than actual student nonverbal
responsiveness behaviors; future studies should examine
student levels of nonverbal responsiveness in the classroom to determine the connection between instructor
perceptions and student enactment of nonverbally
responsive behaviors. In addition, other untested factors
may be adding to student NVR behaviors; in the future,
instructor variables, such as the credibility factors of caring and trustworthiness, should be examined. Further,
there was a larger percentage of female instructors compared to male instructors in the sample; though this
could have influenced the results, an independent samples t-test revealed no gender differences in any of the
variables examined in the current study. In addition, previous research has reported the absence of sex differences
in teacher confirmation behavior and perceptions of student NVR (Malachowski and Martin 2011). Future
research should explore if sex differences exist in gender
identity and teacher perceptions of students.
In addition, more should be understood about teacher
confirmation impressions at the high school or elementary school levels; future research could examine the perceptions of high school instructors to see if differences
exist. Further, participants, although from various
departments, were heavily centered within the communication studies field. It may be these professors are more
aware of their communication/confirmation in the classroom. Those from “other” fields may interpret confirmation perceptions very differently. It would also be useful
to understand the congruence of instructor and student
perceptions. Knowing this could reveal much more
about the relationship between instructor confirmation
behaviors and student nonverbal responsiveness.
This study extends current research on teacher confirmation, teacher satisfaction, and student nonverbal
responsiveness; beyond correlational analysis in previous
research, instructor perceptions of his/her own confirmation behaviors, satisfaction with teaching, and satisfaction with students significantly predict perceptions of
student NVR in the classroom. This study also adds to
current knowledge of how instructor self-perceptions in
the classroom influence their impressions of students, as
well as how emotional contagion can impact teachers
and their classroom communication with students.
Teachers, teacher-trainers, and mentors would do well to
better understand the importance of focusing on the
value of these self-perceptions.
References
Bakker, A. B. 2005. “Flow among Music Teachers and Their
Students: The Crossover of Peak Experiences.” Journal of
Vocational Behavior 66 : 26–44.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays
in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, L. C., Eichhorn, K. C., Basch, C., & Wolf, R. 2009.
“Exploring the Relationship Between Teacher Confirmation, Gender, and Student Effort in the College Classroom.”
Human Communication 12 : 447–64.
Darwin, C. R. 1872. The Expression of Emotions in Man and
Animals. London: John Murray.
Dornyei, Z. 1997. “Psychological Processes in Cooperative
Group Learning: Group Dynamics and Motivation.” Modern Language Journal 81: 482–93.
Dornyei, Z., & Murphy, T. 2003. Group Dynamics in the Language
Classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, K. 2000. “Perceived Teacher Confirmation.” Human
Communication Research 26: 264.
Frymier, A. B. 2005. “Students’ Classroom Communication
Effectiveness.” Communication Quarterly 53: 197–212.
doi:10.1080/01463370500089896
Goldman, Z. W., & Goodboy, A. K. 2014. “Making Students
Feel Better: Examining the Relationships between Teacher
Confirmation and College Students’ Emotional Outcomes.”
Communication Education 63: 259–77. doi:10.1080/
03634523.2014.920091
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. 2008. “The Effect of Teacher
Confirmation on Student Communication and Learning
Outcomes.” Communication Education 57 : 153–179.
doi:10.1080/03634520701787777
Hatfield, E., & Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. 1994. Emotional
Contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Homburg, C. & Stock, R. M. 2004. “The Link between Salespeople’s Job Satisfaction and Customer Satisfaction in a
Business-to-Business Context: A Dyadic Analysis.” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 32: 144–58.
doi:10.1177/0092070303261415
Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. 2001. “Emotional Contagion
Effects on Product Attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research
28: 189–201. doi:10.1086/322897
Hsee, C. K., Hatfield, E., Carlson, J. G., & Chemtob, C. 1990.
“The Effect of Power on Susceptibility to Emotional Contagion.” Cognition and Emotion 4: 327–40.
Jenkins, J. R. & Deno, S. L. 1969. “Influence of Student Behavior on Teacher’s Self-Evaluation.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 60: 439–42. doi:10.1037/h0028495
Klein, S. S. 1969. “Student Influence on Teacher Behavior.”
American Educational Research Journal 8: 403–421.
Malachowski, C. C., & Martin, M. M. 2011. “Instructors’ Perceptions of Teaching Behaviors, Communication Apprehension, and Student Nonverbal Responsiveness in the
COLLEGE TEACHING 7
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017
Classroom.” Communication Research Reports 28: 141–50.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.565275
Miller, K. I., Stiff, J. B., & Ellis, B. H. 1988. “Communication
and Empathy as Precursors to Burnout Among Human Service Workers.” Communication Monographs 55: 250–65.
Mottet, T. P. 2000. “Interactive Television Instructors’ Perceptions of Students’ Nonverbal Responsiveness and Their
Influence on Distance Teaching.” Communication Education 49: 146–64.
Mottet, T., & Beebe, S. 2006. “The Relationships between Student Responsive Behaviors, Student Socio-Communicative
Style, and Instructors’ Subjective and Objective Assessments of Student Work.” Communication Education 55:
295–312. doi:10.1080/03634520600748581
Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Medlock, A. L.
2004a. “The Effects of Student Verbal and Nonverbal
Responsiveness on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction.” Communication Education 53: 150–63. doi:10.10/
03634520410001682410
Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Paulsel, M. L.
2004b. “The Effects of Student Verbal and Nonverbal
Responsiveness on Teachers’ Liking of Students and Willingness to Comply with Student Requests.” Communication
Quarterly 52: 27–38.
Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Paulsel, M. L. 2005.
“The Effects of Student Responsiveness on Teachers Granting Power to Students and Essay Evaluation.” Communication Quarterly 53: 421–36. doi:10.1080/01463370500101840
Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., & Downs, T. M. 1986. “Communication Control in the Classroom and Satisfaction with Teaching and Students.” Communication Education 35: 379.
Schrodt, P., & Finn, A. N. 2011. “Students’ Perceived Understanding: An Alternative Measure and its Associations with
Perceived Teacher Confirmation, Verbal Aggressiveness,
and Credibility.” Communication Education 60: 231–54.
doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.535007
Verbeke, W. 1997. “Individual Differences in Emotional Contagion of Salespersons: Its Effect on Performance and Burnout.” Psychology & Marketing 14: 617–36. doi:10.1002/(SICI)
1520-6793(199709)14:6<617::AID-MAR6>3.0.CO;2-A
Wang, T. R., & Schrodt, P. 2010. “Are Emotional Intelligence
and Contagion Moderators of the Association Between Students’ Perceptions of Instructors’ Nonverbal Immediacy
Cues and Students’ Affect?” Communication Reports 23:
26–38. doi:10.1080/08934211003598775
Wilmot, W. W., & Nimmo, D. 1980. “Metacommunication: A
Re-Examination and Extension.” Communication Yearbook, 4: 61–9.
8 M. L. HOUSER AND C. WALDBUESSER
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 06:49 26 September 2017

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

• Plagiarism free papers
• Timely delivery
• Any deadline
• Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
• Subject-relevant academic writer
• Adherence to paper instructions
• Ability to tackle bulk assignments
• Reasonable prices
• 24/7 Customer Support
• Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

• When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
• We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

• The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
• We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
• Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment Help Service Works

1. Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2. Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3. Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4. Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!