Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theory suggests that our evaluations of an observed communicator's competence is a function of the similarity between the competence‐relevant characteristics we attribute to the communicator and the characteristics we would expect of the "ideal communicator."; It follows that when we judge ourselves as communicators, we should also compare our own perceived characteristics with our conception of the "ideal."; Research participants rated themselves, a friend, and the "highly competent communicator"; on items measuring their characteristics and evaluations of their communicative competence. Consistent with expectation, the reationship between judgments and evaluations of the friend and the "ideal,"; and the self and the "ideal,"; were both strong. Notes Charles Pavitt is an assistant professor of communication at the University of Delaware. This study was supported by a grant‐in‐aid from the College of Arts at the University of Delaware. Thanks to George Borden, Cyndy Burggraf, Larry Haight, and Betsy Perse for providing research participants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Charles Pavitt (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: