This study was conducted in order to compare the communication styles of United States and France, among college students. Participants (n = 412) were interviewed through a close-ended questionnaire sent by email, both in the United States and in France. The current study measured self-assessments on communication styles by 412 individuals.

1. RUNNING HEAD: COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR
STYLES AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
A Comparison of American and French Communicator Styles among College Students
Illinois State University
Claire Bounon

2. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
2
Abstract
This study was conducted in order to compare the communication styles of United States
and France, among college students. Participants (n = 412) were interviewed through a close-
ended questionnaire sent by email, both in the United States and in France.
The current study measured self-assessments on communication styles by 412 individuals and
showed that French participants are more dominant and argumentative than American
participants.

3. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
3
Communication has become very important in our world today. It is used on a daily basis
and in a majority of situations and sectors. Communication evolves depending on the individual
and its personal tendencies to communicate, addressing himself or herself to others but also
receiving information. “Research indicates that individuals possess particular expressive styles of
interpersonal interaction” (Norton, 1979, p.9). Depending on many personal patterns, such as an
individual’s biological sex (Montgomery & Norton, 1981), the way the communicator
communicates can vary, as well as his or her verbal and non-verbal cues. The message intended
by the communicator can be totally transformed by the communication style of the speaker,
complementing or not the message, whether it is voluntary or involuntary (Norton, 1982). The
generation of young people getting education in colleges today will be the next communicators
of our society in a few years, which is why they are the sample studied in this research.
The purpose of the study is to extend previous research that has little literature review so
far, but to extend it internationally by comparing American and French Communication Styles
among college students. To do so, Communication Styles are studied and analyzed, as well as
cultural values of both Americans and French individuals, in order to better understand the way
they communicate.
Communicator Style
Norton (1978) refined a measure called “Communicator Style Construct” (CSC), that was
originally developed “by Mortensen (1972); and Mortensen, Norton, and Arntson (1972)”
(Norton, 1979, p.10). This measure consists of ten independent variables (Dominant, Dramatic,
Contentious, Animated, Impression Leaving, Relaxed, Attentive, Open, Friendly and Precise)
and one dependent variable (Communicator Image). This “Communicator Style Construct”
measures each style with several items (Villaume & Bodie, 2007). A communicator style is

4. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
4
defined as the way an individual choses to act while communicating with others, by speaking,
acting, listening for example (Norton, 1978, 1983). Furthermore, these eleven dimensions
characterize communicators in various situations, naturally connected to their personalities
(Villaume & Bodie, 2007). These communication styles are entirely self-reported, by the
individual’s perception of own behavior. Hansford (1988) puts emphasize on the fact that
communicator styles are observable but problems are often created because of sampling errors in
self-assessments, distorting the data, because of a certain perception of participants, often
misrepresented. A communicator style usually emerges from the judgment of behaviors and
interpretations of messages (Porter, 1982). Porter (1982) precises that communication
apprehension could be positively associated with distortion of these judgments.
The eleven communication styles are described below:
Dominant
According to Norton (1978), an individual with a dominant communicator style tends to
be in charge in social situations. Gacho (2007) cites previous work and precise that an individual
with a high dominant style is more likely to have greater self-esteem than individuals with low
dominant style, tending to make mistakes when detecting others’ communication styles.
However, a dominant communicator can sometimes come on too strong (Bodie & Villaume,
2003). In the past, “perhaps no other style variable has received as much attention in relation to
sex differences as dominance” (Montgomery & Norton, 1981, p. 123).
Dramatic
When communicating, a dramatic communicator is likely to exaggerate and manipulate,
intentionally or not, its listeners to increase or minimize content (Gacho, 2007). Norton (1983)
precises that the meaning of a message can be completely transformed when a communicator is

5. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
5
dramatic. Some receivers are able to identify the underlying meaning of the dramatized message,
when others are not able to understand the real meaning meant by the speaker (Norton, 1983).
Contentious/Argumentative
A contentious or argumentative communicator can be closely related to the dominant
style, expect that an argumentative communicator uses more negative and combative
components in its messages to its receivers (Norton, 1983), and is more confrontational (Bodie
&Villaume, 2003). As Gacho (2007) explains, a contentious communicator often misses
important issues by putting too much emphasize on irrelevant details that will in the future,
prevent discussion.
Animated/Expressive
When an animated or expressive communicator speaks, physical and nonverbal cues
often occur such as frequent and constant eye contact, gestures or facial expressions (Norton,
1979), qualities more displayed by females than males (Montgomery & Norton, 1981; Staley &
Cohen, 1988). Montgomery and Norton (1981) precise that this communicator style associated to
the Friendly style reflect some elements of social sensitivity.
Impression-leaving
When a communicator leaves an impression, it can be in a positive or in a negative way,
because of a memorable style of communication (Norton, 1983). Furthermore, Gacho (2007)
explains that leaving a convincing impression has been considered as an important component to
the communication process.
Relaxed
A relaxed communicator is described as a communicator whom is free of anxiety, but
with higher levels of confidence and comfortableness than other communicators (Gacho, 2007).

6. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
6
Communicating in a relaxed way can lead to the transformation of a message differently, as
Norton notices (1983) with an appreciated use of humor for example.
Open
An open communicator is “being conversational, expansive, affable, convivial,
gregarious, unreserved, unsecretive, somewhat frank, possibly outspoken, definitely extroverted,
and obviously approachable" (Norton, 1978, p. 101). Revealing some personal information while
communicating is common for an open communicator. However, open style does not guarantee
that the personal information provided by the speaker is accurate or trustworthy (Norton, 1982).
According to Bodie and Villaume (2003), “When one chooses to listen for empathic reasons his
or her communication patterns are more likely to be supportive and open” (p.48), which helps
the sender experience a positive interaction. It is possible to notice the degree of style openness
with use of “facial expressions, eye-contact, gestures, posture, vocal cues, word choices,
riskiness of content and context variables” (Montgomery & Norton, 1981, p.125).
Friendly
A friendly communicator "ranges in meaning from being unhostile to deep intimacy"
(Norton, 1978, p. 101), and positively recognize others (Gacho, 2007). Research has shown that
in an interpersonal encounter, a friendly participant is more attractive (Norton, 1979).
Precise
Norton (1983) added this communicator style in a later formulation of the measure. It
simply describes a communicator that is accurate and correct in its communications with others,
as a sender but also as a receiver, and that usually is in control (Bodie & Villaume, 2003).
Previous researchers (Montgomery & Norton, 1981; Staley & Cohen, 1988) note that males
often see themselves more precise than females.

7. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
7
Communicator Image
This last communicator style refers to the dependent variable, as an overall perception of
the self, as a good communicator, based upon own criteria (Norton, 1983). This variable depends
on the others independent variables described above.
Communicator styles are interesting to study in order to understand better what are the
communication tendencies, and in this case, compare them between countries. However, it is
important to remember that as well as in other countries, North America and France are divided
in different states, regions, departments etc. In these divisions, it is common to find different way
of speaking and expressing ourselves. For example, the tone of the voice might change, putting
emphasizes on different syllables, and vocabulary might vary which can create some
complications in a dialogue. These accommodations might affect the way people communicate
between each other, therefore transforming their communication styles.
Americans’ Cultural Values
Understanding cultural values is important in order to better understand how individuals
from a particular country act and communicate between themselves but also with people from
other countries, whom usually have different cultural values. Increasing knowledge on particular
cultural values can only help increasing competences in intercultural and cross-cultural
communication, by relating them to communication styles. Knowing the cultural values of the
country can lead to a better understanding of communication styles, and therefore increase
effectiveness in intercultural communications. American individuals are known for their
directness and openness in general, appreciating direct and constant eye contact and firm non-
verbal communication for example. These values can relate to the precise and open
communicator styles for example. However, Americans enjoy their personal space and privacy,

8. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
8
which can be contradictory with an open communicator style. Furthermore, Americans can be
very informal and casual, without affecting their qualities for hard work and achievement, they
can also relate to a more relaxed communicator style. Hofstede (1984) created a model that
explains cultural tendencies of many countries on six precise dimensions, which are: power
distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, pragmatism and indulgence. For the
purpose of this study, Hofstede’s dimensions (1984) are examined both for America and France,
and then compared.
Power Distance relates to the notion of equality in a society. Americans do not score high
on this dimension (40); meaning that the less powerful members of institutions or organizations
do not accept that power can be distributed unequally. This dimension can directly relate to the
dominant communicator style. America scores high on Individualism (91), meaning that liberty,
independence and justice are important values for Americans, joined with equality; which are
possibly relating to the open communicator style. Then, Masculinity relates to the notions that
society can be lead by competition. America scores 62, which can be leading again to a dominant

9. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
9
communicator style, but also impression-leaving. Uncertainty Avoidance refers to the notion of
not knowing what future is made of. By scoring 46, America is both accepting and fearing
future, which can relate to a relaxed, argumentative and animated communicator style. The
dimension of Pragmatism refers to what is considered good and what is considered bad. America
scoring low (26) shows that traditions are appreciated and that change is analyzed precisely,
relating possibly with the precise communicator style in order to be sure of what individuals are
getting themselves into. The last dimension analyzed by Hofstede (…) is Indulgence, defined as
the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses. By scoring high (68),
Americans are indulgent, which can relate to the relaxed, open and friendly communicator style.
French Cultural Values
French people score high on Power Distance (68); meaning that there an important gap
between the less powerful members of institutions or organizations and the higher members. This
dimension can directly relate to the dominant communicator style. France scores relatively high
on individualism (71), which means that a French individual is expected to take care of himself

10. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
10
or herself, and also his or her family. This can lead to an open, friendly but dominant
communicator style. France scores 43 on Masculinity, which is a feminine score. French society
is not that driven by competition. This score can be leading again to a relaxed communicator
style. By scoring 86 on Uncertainty Avoidance, France fears future, which can be noticed by the
need for planning and structure. This high score can relate to a dominant, argumentative and
animated communicator style. France scoring high (63) on Pragmatism shows that context is
very important, transforming situations sometimes. This possibly relates to impression-leaving
and precise communicator styles. France scores low on the last dimension called Indulgence,
(48), French people are more restrained that indulgent. This can be leading to a dominant and
precise communicator style.
Comparison of American and French cultural values
Comparing these cultural values between the two countries studied is interesting in order
to obtain a better idea of the results of this research. There are some differences in each
dimension, but the gaps are never very important between the American and French cultures.

11. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
11
America and France are both individualistic countries. However, America is more driven
by competition that France is. By fearing future more than Americans, French people are
expected to be more precise and argumentative in order to not be surprised, but also by being
restrained (indulgence).
Research Question
Based on cultural values and this previous literature review, we expect French college
students to be more argumentative than American college students. Therefore, the following
Research Question can be asked:
RQ: “Are French college students more argumentative in their communication styles than
Americans?”
Method
The research totalized a number of 412 exploitable responses including 283 females (M =
68.5) and 129 males (M = 31.5). 325 participants aged between 18 and 25 years old, 37 between
25 and 30 years old and 48 over 30 years old.
American sample
American participants (n = 401) were recruited through emails sent in a large Midwestern
University. Participants were 276 females (M = 68.8) and 125 males (31.1).
French sample
French participants were recruited from a large private business school located in Paris,
and were individually contacted by emails with a close-ended questionnaire. Research totalized a
number of 11 French participants, including 7 Females (M = 63.6) and 4 males (M = 36). 8
participants aged between 18 and 25 years old, 1 between 25 and 30 years old and 2 over 30
years old.

12. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
12
Measure
A close-ended questionnaire of 52 questions was sent to the participants based on a Likert
Scale (Strongly Disagree: 1 to Strongly Agree: 5).
Table 1
Questionnaire
What is your country of origin?
1. I am comfortable with all varieties of people
1 2 3 4 5
2. I laugh easily.
3. I readily express admiration for others.
4. What I say usually leaves an impression on people.
5. I leave people with an impression of me which they definitely tend to remember.
6. To be friendly, I habitually acknowledge verbally other's contributions.
7. I am a very good communicator.
8. I have some nervous mannerisms in my speech.
9. I am a very relaxed communicator.
10. When I disagree with somebody I am very quick to challenge them.
11. I can always repeat back to a person exactly what was meant.
12. The sound of my voice is very easy to recognize.
13. I am a very precise communicator.
14. I leave a definite impression on people.
15. The rhythm or flow of my speech is sometimes affected by my nervousness.
16. Under pressure I come across as a relaxed speaker.
17. My eyes reflect exactly what I am feeling when I communicate.
18. I dramatize a lot.
19. I always find it very easy to communicate on a one-to-one basis with strangers.
20. Usually, I deliberately react in such a way that people know that I am listening to them.
21. Usually I do not tell people much about myself until I get to know them well.
22. Regularly I tell jokes, anecdotes and stories when I communicate.
23. I tend to constantly gesture when I communicate.
24. I am an extremely open communicator.
25. I am vocally a loud communicator.
26. In a small group of strangers I am a very good communicator.
27. In arguments I insist upon very precise definitions.
28. In most social situations I generally speak very frequently.
29. I find it extremely easy to maintain a conversation with a member of the opposite sex whom I have

13. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
13
just met.
30. I like to be strictly accurate when I communicate.
31. Because I have a loud voice I can easily break into it conversation.
32. Often I physically and vocally act out what I want to communicate.
33. I have an assertive voice.
34. I readily reveal personal things about myself.
35. I am dominant in social situations.
36. I am very argumentative.
37. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I have a hard time stopping myself.
38. I am always an extremely friendly communicator.
39. I really like to listen very carefully to people.
40. Very often I insist that other people document or present some kind of proof for what they are
arguing.
41. I try to take charge of things when I am with people.
42. It bothers me to drop an argument that is not resolved.
43. In most social situations I tend to come on strong.
44. I am very expressive nonverbally in social situations.
45. The way I say something usually leaves an impression on people
46. Whenever I communicate, I tend to be very encouraging to people.
47. I actively use a lot of facial expressions when I communicate.
48. I very frequently verbally exaggerate to emphasize a point.
49. I am an extremely attentive communicator.
50. As a rule, I openly express my feelings and emotions.
51. Out of a random group of six people, including myself, I would probably have a better
communicator style than (circle one choice):
5 of 4 of 3 of 2 of 1 of None of
them them them them them them
Only 45 items on the 52 items were scored. Ten subconstructs with four items per
subconstruct can be treated as independent variables. One sub construct, communicator image, can
be treated as a dependent variable. Items 1,2,12,25,31, and 33 are filler items and were ignored. In
order to get the results, the following was converted: Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral =
3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5. The different communicator styles relate to the following
questions: Friendly 36, 38, 46; Impression Leaving 4, 5, 14, 45; Relaxed 8, 9, 15, 16;
Contentious/Argumentative10, 36, 37, 42; Attentive 11, 20, 39, 49; Precise 13, 27, 30, 40;
Animated/Expressive 17, 23, 44, 47; Dramatic 18, 22, 32, 48; Open 21, 24, 34, 50; Dominant 28,

14. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
14
35, 41, 43; Communicator Image 7, 19, 26, 29, 51.
Results
Table 2
Communicator Style Average score United States Average score France
Dominant 10.42 10.81
Dramatic 11.82 9.45
Argumentative 10.99 11.09
Animated 13.25 11.00
Impression-leaving 12.45 10.90
Relaxed 12.97 12.09
Attentive 13.44 12.81
Open 11.43 10.36
Friendly 9.40 9.00
Precise 11.69 11.09
Communicator Image 15.35 13.27
This research helped providing results of comparisons between different communicator
style among college students in both United States and France. Each communicator style was
analyzed for both countries and then compared to each other. Overall, American college students
get higher scores on average than French college students. Out of 11 communicator styles,

15. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
15
American college students got higher scores than French college students on 9 communicator
styles. French participants scored higher on dominant (10.81) and argumentative communicator
styles (11.09). Overall, American and French results stayed pretty similar, except for the
following communicator styles: Dramatic, Animated and Communicator Image. While
Americans scored higher on these communicator styles, it shows that there is an important
difference between French and American college students on their way of being dramatic,
animated in their communications and the way they see themselves as communicators. The
communicator styles on which Americans and French scored in a most similar way are the
Argumentative, Friendly and Precise styles with differences under 0.6 average points.
The research question “Are French college students more argumentative in their
communication styles than Americans?” is supported. Scores of Americans and French
participants on this communicator style are very close (difference of 0.1 average point), but
French participants are more argumentative than Americans (11.09).
Discussion
This study supported the question that French individuals are more argumentative in their
communication styles than are Americans, therefore more confrontational (Bodie &Villaume,
2003). However, Americans A principal limitation of this research is that the data is entirely self-
reported, which can alter the results because of influence and social desirability of the
participants, especially college students. Hansford (1988) noticed some sampling errors because
of self-assessments, often distorting the results. Future research could focus on observation of the
participants. Furthermore, it would be interesting that future research deals with a more general
sample than just college students, by expanding to more generations for example. Another major
limitation of this study is the important difference of sample sizes between the two groups

16. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
16
compared to each other. It would be more accurate to study this matter with samples from the
same size. Finally, French participants took the survey in English, but their responses might have
been altered. If they took it in their native language, the answers might differ.
The principal strength of this study is that it is the first research on the matter, especially
worldwide comparison. This research have been extending previous little literature and previous
studies about communicator styles, by extending it also internationally and interculturally. It
opens the topic to bigger research for the future, in order to better understand communication
differences between cultures and be more prepared to intercultural communication, leading to
better efficiency and accuracy.

17. COMPARISONS OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH COMMUNICATOR STYLES AMONG
COLLEGE STUDENTS
17
References
Bodie, G. D., Villaume, W. A. (2003). Aspects of receiving information: The relationship
between listening preferences, communication apprehension, receiver apprehension, and
communicator style. International Journal of Listening, 17, 47-67.
Gacho, S. R. (2007). Cross-cultural communication styles in multinational companies in
Malaysia. Human communication, 10, 1-19.
Hansford, B. C. (1988). Self-reports and observations of dominant communicator style and
communication apprehension. Communication Research Reports, 5, 44-51.
Hofstede, G. (1984.) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values
(2nd ed.) Beverly Hills CA.
Montgomery, B. M., Norton, R. W. (1981). Sex differences and similarities in communication
style. Communication Monographs, 48, 121-132.
Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication
Research, 4, 99-112.
Norton, R. W. (1982). Style, content, and target components of openness. Communication Research, 9,
33-65.
Porter, D. T. (1982). Communicator style perceptions as a function of communication apprehension.
Communication Quarterly, 30, 237-244.
Staley, C. C., Cohen, J. L. (1988). Communication style and social style: Similarities and differences
between the sexes. Communication Quartely, 36, 192-202.