The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Rhetorical and Strategic Study of Credibility Holona L. Ochs, University of Kansas Andrew B. Whitford, University of Georgia

Abstract How can teachers establish credibility in the classroom? We argue that a teacher seeking to establish credibility in the classroom can look to the insights from the communications studies literature and the strategic games literature. Specifically, this assessment reveals the connection between communication theory and strategic games. We demonstrate the utility of applying what we know from firmly established traditions. We argue that instructors can alter the perception of their competence and trustworthiness through credible commitment mechanisms. We also argue that instructors perceived as competent and trustworthy can facilitate greater learning potential by enhancing the motivational commitment and the imperative commitment of students.

A central task for teachers is to persuade students that what they teach has value. The problem of persuasion, of course, has long been studied. Because a teacher’s messages, just like political ones, are not independent of their source (McCroskey, 1997), the credibility of the teacher is a fundamental aspect of teaching persuasion and social influence. How does one build the capacity to generate understanding or to persuade? What techniques are employed in persuasive discourse? When are particular methods more or less influential? How does one go about establishing the credibility necessary for influence? On one hand, the literature in communication studies has attempted to examine and measure message and source credibility as a construct to better assess variation in the perception of credibility (see McCroskey, 1966, 1997, 1999; McCroskey and Jensen, 1975; Mehrabian, 1970; McCroskey and Young, 1981; JPAE 13(3/4):499–507

Journal of Public Affairs Education 499

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility Wanzenried, Powell, and Franks, 1989; Leathers, 1992; McCroskey and Richmond, 1996). Generally, this literature presents three theoretical constructs for understanding the perception of credibility as it is filtered through the source (see Whitehead, 1968; Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz, 1969; Applbaum and Anatol, 1973; Tuppen, 1974; McCroskey, 1966; McCroskey and Jenson, 1975): (1) competence, as measured by qualification, expertness, intelligence, and/or authoritativeness; (2) trustworthiness, as measured by character, sagacity, safety, and/or honesty; and (3) goodwill or intent toward the receiver. These three dimensions factor into two analytical dimensions—competence and trustworthiness—in both of which goodwill is subsumed (McCroskey and Young, 1981). Other studies focus on person perception (see Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957; Norman, 1963; Markham, 1968), emphasizing “trait-based” characteristics of the messenger (see Asch, 1946), nonverbal communication skills (Leathers, 1992), and biases in judgment (Ichheiser, 1949; Ross and Nisbett, 1991; Gilbert and Malone, 1995). On the other hand, literature from the study of strategic games has also addressed the role of credible commitments in human interaction (Dixit and Nalebuff, 1991). Shepsle (1991) defines a commitment as credible in the motivational sense when players continue to want to honor the commitment at the time of performance and a commitment as credible in the imperative sense when performance is coerced or discretion is disabled. Credible commitments are positively related to the development of social norms that foster long-term investments, which are undermined by opportunistic behavior (Macneil, 1980). The strategic games literature generally recognizes a three-component model of relational commitments (Meyer and Allen, 1991): (1) an input or instrumental component, which is essentially calculated acts that are difficult to redeploy; (2) an attitudinal component, which represents an enduring intention to develop stable relationships; and (3) a temporal component, which is a measure of consistency. Commitment structures that are less than credible yield mixed incentives, lack a strong normative culture, and are comprised of low levels of investment (Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer, 1995), ultimately undermining political exchange (Miller, 2000) and economic exchange (Falaschetti and Miller, 2001). External agents are necessary but not sufficient conditions for efficient exchange unless credible commitments against opportunism exist (Miller, 2000; Falaschetti and Miller, 2001). In large part, these literatures have evolved separately, identifying two different dynamics for establishing credibility. The puzzle that persists in the communication literature is that measures of source credibility and personal credibility are not stable (Powell and Wanzenried, 1995). The puzzle that remains in the strategic games literature is how commitment structures affect the perception of credibility. In this paper, we argue that a teacher seeking to establish credibility in the classroom should look to the insights of both of these literatures. Specifically, we show how formal and informal commitment structures can foster perceptions of 500 Journal of Public Affairs Education

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility competence and trustworthiness. We outline structural and behavioral mechanisms instructors can use to demonstrate their commitment to students perceptibly. This analysis proceeds as follows. In the next section, we briefly discuss the problem of establishing credibility. We then review communications literature insights into the choices instructors can make that assist in the construction of classroom credibility. Third, we introduce some institutional choices instructors can make to better demonstrate commitment and earn credibility. Last, we analyze some specific strategies for establishing credibility that flow from the communications and strategic games literatures. Credibility in the Classroom A short definition of credibility is the quality or power to inspire belief. Establishing credibility is a means for achieving the goal of persuasion or generating understanding (McCroskey and Young, 1981). Although teachers are the only authority figure afforded credibility consistently across the population (Hinckley and Shapiro, 1998; Jacobs, Hinckley, and Shapiro, 1999), credibility is not often addressed in the literature on classroom performance and behavior. Classroom leadership is particularly important for university instructors because of the growing tendency for college students, who are largely autonomous and independent, to question authority. College students’ interests and learning styles exhibit great variety (Fox and Ronkowski, 1997), making it both difficult and vital for teachers to establish credible classroom leadership in order to enhance active learning. Active learning has been shown to improve student interest and commitment to learning (Salemi, 2002), to motivate underachieving students (Watson et al., 1996), and to boost the retention of course material (Kvam, 2000). Instructors have a signaling role that matters only if the students observe it. If the incentives are unclear and credibility is in question, their leadership is likely to be ignored (Wilson and Rhodes, 1997). Teachers who are competent, trustworthy, and dynamic are generally thought to be “credible” (Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz ,1969; Cooper and Simonds, 1999; Kouzes and Posner, 1993). These three dimensions—competence, trustworthiness, and dynamism—form the behavioral foundation of credibility. The question is thus, “How are these dimensions of credibility effectively communicated to inspire students to perform to their potential?” Instructors can adopt and modify sets of behaviors to improve classroom performance. Although students and contexts vary considerably for instructors, the communication studies and strategic games literatures reveal some simple techniques that are broadly applicable. For example, demonstrating competence includes such things as the ability to explain complex material well, refined skills in classroom management, consistent ability to answer student questions in a fair and balanced manner, referencing significant literature related to the topic, effective communication skills, exhibiting a broad base of information, and the ability Journal of Public Affairs Education 501

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility to do what one is teaching. A trustworthy teacher follows through on promises, gives immediate feedback, offers a rational explanation for grading, teaches from multiple perspectives in an unbiased manner, treats all student the same, never embarrasses students, and is flexible. A dynamic teacher has high energy, is interesting, can deviate to increase student interest, has good presentation skills, and relates positively to students. The dimensions of credibility are sets of behaviors that demonstrate respect and concern for students, increasing the chances that students will engage in the class. Of course, teacher credibility is a necessary but not sufficient condition for learning. Although “students simply do not accept information from sources lacking credibility” (Beatty, Behnke, and Henderson, 1980, 56), and credible teachers are capable of increasing students’ motivation, their drive to succeed, and their overall academic performance (Cooper and Simonds, 1999; Kougl, 1997; Teven and McCrosky, 1997), students still retain ultimate responsibility for their performance in the classroom. Insights on Credibility from Communication Studies In communication studies, building credibility is a problem in message and source believability. Accordingly, the communication studies literature notes eight basic attributes that teachers might modify in order to enhance their credibility. They are insincerity, the use of powerless language, casual appearance, nonimmediacy, speaking in a non-Midwestern dialect, poor presentation skills, verbal pauses (Beatty, Behnke, and Henderson, 1980; Haleta, 1996; Leathers, 1992), and marginalized status (Russ, Simonds, and Hunt, 2003). Establishing and maintaining credibility are crucial to the learning process, but a few problems are often associated with establishing credibility in the classroom. In particular, new instructors may not have a deep knowledge of the topic. They may not have a strong teaching background. More importantly, there may not be much time to change these facts before one actually has to teach a course. Perception is often stronger than reality, and instructors can make some simple choices to signal the impression of credibility. Credibility is enhanced by a teacher’s own sense of comfort and confidence presenting material, their enthusiasm and interest in teaching, and their research and ideas. Commitment is enhanced by relating experience, ideas, and feelings, taking the first person approach and not separating oneself from the subject, and expressing one’s passion for the subject. Delivery is tied to commitment and credibility. Albert Mehrabian’s (1981) pioneering work at UCLA analyzing effective presentations identifies three elements important to establishing believability: verbal, vocal, and visual. Essentially, Mehrabian says that 7 percent of believability is accounted for by the words used, 38 percent of credibility depends on how one sounds (not the actual words), and 55 percent of believability is determined by how one looks when one speaks. Although teaching is not theater, students find concepts, knowledge, skills, and ideas most accessible and credible from someone they consider, well, not dull. 502 Journal of Public Affairs Education

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility The rhetorical study of commitment shows the power of image. Consider a teacher’s visual, verbal, and vocal image. In the classroom, students will mirror, to some degree, a teacher’s energy and intensity, so new teachers should be conscientious of how they are perceived and how they perceive others. New teachers are often told to engage students whenever possible, to take a passive, professional interest in their students, and to try to remember each of their names. They are told to be clear and time considerate, to be consistent—but to modify their presentation of the material, especially if they have not yet found the right combination for that particular group of students—and to know the material and be enthusiastic about it. They are told to develop a commanding, rather than a demanding, presence. While these suggestions may seem hollow to new teachers, they are in many ways fully consistent with the rhetorical study of credibility. Political communication makes the same points about how leaders draw in the electorate. For example, teachers have to navigate a fundamental divide—their own position of authority makes both them and their students vulnerable. Of course, all students are equally valuable, but a teacher is not the students’ equal. It is this difference that makes credible action necessary. Instructors have plenty of reasons to be mindful of their position of authority so that neither party misuses that authority. Just as in political communication, establishing and maintaining credibility in the classroom relies on a balance between the following tradeoffs: educating and entertaining; professionalism and personalization; and fairness to an individual student and fairness to the class. Simple rules from the literature on source and message credibility suggest that teachers try to be respectful of all students and expect students to do the same, to utilize examples from a broad base of perspectives, to know ones’ limits, and to admit and fix any mistakes they make. Generally, students do not expect a teacher to know everything, but they do expect long-term message and source credibility. Just as in politics, skepticism of people who do have all the answers is practical. Insights from the Strategic Study of Commitments As with political actors, students test a teacher’s commitment to them, to the rules, to their own decisions, and so forth. Like politicians, instructors generate credibility by demonstrating that their actions will in fact match their words. Both actors have reasons to uphold their obligations, keep promises, and follow through on the consequences. Strategic analysis suggests at least eight specific techniques for making credible commitments (e.g., Dixit and Nalebuff, 1991). First, actors should establish and use a reputation. Again, new instructors are often asked to assess their personal tendencies and preferences and to establish clear boundaries with students. They are asked to be approachable and to decide how approachable they intend to be. Journal of Public Affairs Education 503

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility Over time, they are expected to develop a philosophy of teaching that provides consistency across classes and to establish policies that are consistent across courses. Smart teachers firmly and consistently follow through on the rules they establish. In the classroom, teachers with policies against accepting late work often find their reputation damaged by making exceptions because intermittent reinforcement fosters an increased likelihood of a given behavior. Teachers are asked to consider their own goals when establishing a reputation. Do I want to be perceived as firm but fair, difficult but worthwhile? These admonitions are all consistent with the strategic edict to develop and use one’s reputation as a way of establishing long-term credibility. Second, actors can write contracts. Contracts make one’s interests clear. In the classroom, a syllabus is a contract that defines goals, makes expectations clear, and can be relied on for consistency. A syllabus is a contract that is structurally sound when it binds the teacher as well as outlining how students determine their own grade. Grading rubrics are a second way to contractually instill trust. Specifying in advance whether and how a teacher accepts grade appeals is another contractual mechanism for binding actions and words. Teachers also often request that students who are underachieving meet with them to negotiate an arrangement that will help the student become an active participant in his or her success. Third, actors can manage communication. Cutting off communication is a successful credibility mechanism because it makes an action irreversible by rendering renegotiation virtually impossible. The common practice of requiring students turn papers in to www.turnitin.com not only strengthens academic integrity; it minimizes the renegotiation of time constraints. Instructors may also require that a typed argument be submitted before they will talk to students about a grade appeal and may stipulate that they will respond to the appeal in the same manner. This places responsibility for grades on students, and formalizing their arguments in this manner ensures that they learn from the process as well. Fourth, actors limit their ability to back out or renegotiate. This can be accomplished in various ways in the classroom. One method instructors utilize is to burn or build bridges, such as by offering a minimally important quiz to provide students with feedback about their probability of success in the course before the drop date. Instructors also bind their commitment to students by removing test questions with statistically low performance from the exam scores. This signals to students that the teacher is committed to the evaluation of relevant criteria that presume the possibility of success. Fifth, actors favor automatic enforcement or leaving an outcome to chance to minimize bias introduced in renegotiation and to establish credible commitments. One way to institute this in the classroom is to require students submit papers via a course management system like Blackboard, so that a “time/date” stamp accompanies all submissions and automatically caps the total possible points for late assign504 Journal of Public Affairs Education

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility ments. An important aspect of this credibility device is that the threat should be no stronger than necessary for deterrence so that students are not concerned about enforcement errors. Sixth, actors try to move incrementally. In the natural sciences, mathematics, and—remarkably—composition courses this is often achieved by never assigning work of extraordinarily high value. This strategy allows students to determine their grades in small steps throughout the course of the semester, with well-designed assignments that allow for the evaluation of the learning process rather than merely assessing a product. For example, a paper may be assigned in the following manner: (1) a thesis statement due two weeks prior to the first draft of the paper; (2) a rough draft of the paper turned in one week prior to the final draft; (3) a final draft to be graded with points subtracted for any missing prerequisites; and (4) the opportunity to revise their graded papers for one letter grade improvement if all the suggested revisions are made adequately. Seventh, strategic actors use teamwork to enhance commitment. In economic settings, teams allow leaders to use peer pressure to their advantage. Likewise, in the classroom, teamwork is an opportunity for active and experiential learning. What better way to teach about institutions than putting students in groups to design social institutions? For example, students may be assigned to groups in which their task is to conceptualize a society and construct an imaginary regime. This exercise can be used throughout the semester to demonstrate the implications of the rules they construct for various trade-offs. Eighth, strategic actors employ a mandatory negotiating agent. A third party can enhance credibility by demonstrating a commitment to fairness. For example, teachers now regularly pair with another instructor and trade grade appeals so that the final decision is arbitrated. A mandated negotiating agent does not have the authority to compromise. Additionally, a mechanical third party makes successful haggling impossible, so for example, utilizing www.turnitin.com minimizes attempts by students to haggle over the due date. Conclusions This study reveals the connection between communication theory and strategic games. We demonstrate the utility of applying what we know from these firmly established traditions. Competent and trustworthy sources of information have a greater capacity for influence. Additionally, commitment structures that are credible bind relational exchanges in a manner that increases investments and fosters stability. We believe that the relationships detailed above have two primary implications for practical application. First, instructors can affect the perception of their competence and trustworthiness through credible commitment mechanisms. Structuring incentives in a manner consistent with the priorities of the course ensures that the appearance of credibility that one is attempting to communicate is Journal of Public Affairs Education 505

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility indeed a credible commitment, capable of persuading or generating understanding. Second, instructors perceived as competent and trustworthy can facilitate greater learning potential by enhancing the motivational commitment and the imperative commitment of students. Dynamic teachers who acknowledge their authority and construct obligations that minimize opportunism while ensuring that students retain responsibility for learning encourage motivated students and compel those who are not self-starters to follow through. References Applbaum, R. L., and K. W. Anatol. 1973. “Dimensions of Source Credibility.” Speech Monographs, 40:230–237. Asch, Solomon E. 1946. “Forming Impressions of Personality.” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 41:258–290. Beatty, M., R. Behnke, and L. Henderson. 1980. “An Empirical Validation of the Receiver Apprehension Test as a Measure of Trait Listening.” Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44:132– 136. Berlo, D., J. Lemert, and R. Mertz. 1969. “Dimensions for Evaluating the Acceptability of Message Sources.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 33:563–576. Cooper, P., and C. Simonds. 1999. Communication for the Classroom Teacher, 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Dixit, Avinash K., and Barry J. Nalebuff. 1991. Strategic Games. New York: Norton. Falaschetti, Dino, and Gary Miller. 2001. “Constraining Leviathan: Moral Hazard and Credible Commitment in Constitutional Design.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13(4):389–411. Fox, Richard L., and Shirley A. RonKowski. 1997. “Learning Styles of Political Science Students.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 30:732–737. Gilbert, D. T., and Patrick S. Malone. 1995. “The Correspondence Bias.” Psychological Bulletin, 117(1):21–38. Gundlach, Gregory T., Ravi S. Achrol, and John Mentzer. 1995. “The Structure of Commitment in Exchange.” Journal of Marketing, 59(1):78–92. Haleta, L. 1996. “Student Perceptions of Teachers’ Use of Language: The Effects of Powerful and Powerless Language on Impression Formation and Uncertainty.” Communication Education, 45:16–28. Hinckley, Ronald H. and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1998. National Issues Credibility Index Study. New York: Rockefeller Foundation. Ichheiser, Gustav. 1949. Misunderstandings in Human Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jacobs, Lawrence R., Robert Y. Shapiro, and Ronald H. Hinckley. 1999. The Credibility Crisis: Congress and the Press Neglect Sources Americans Believe the Most. A Research/Strategy/Management, Inc. Report. Kougl, K. 1997. Communicating in the Classroom. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Kouzes, J., and B. Posner. 1993. Credibility: How Leaders Gain It and Lose It, Why People Demand It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kvam, Paul H. 2000. “The Effect of Active Learning Methods on Student Retention in Engineering Statistics.” The American Statistician, 54:138–140. Leathers, D. 1992. Successful Nonverbal Communication: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan. Macneil, Ian R. 1980. The New Social Contract: An Inquiry Into Modern Contractual Relations. New Haven: Yale University Press. Markham, D. 1968. “The Dimensions of Source Credibility of Television Newscasters.” Journal of Communication, 18:57–64. McCroskey, James C. 1966. “Scales for the Measurement of Ethos.” Speech Monographs, 33:65–72. McCroskey, James C. 1997. An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 7th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

506 Journal of Public Affairs Education

The Institutional Design of Courses: Insights from the Study of Credibility McCroskey, James C. 1999. An Introduction to Communication in the Classroom. Edina, MN: Burgess International. McCroskey, James C., and T. A. Jensen. 1975. “Image of Mass Media News Sources.” Journal of Broadcasting, 19:169–180. McCroskey, James C., and Virginia Richmond. 1996. Fundamentals of Human Communication: An Interpersonal Perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. McCroskey, James C., and T. J. Young. 1981. “Ethos and Credibility: The Construct and Its Measurement After Three Decades.” Central States Speech Journal, 32:24­–34. Mehrabian, Albert. 1970. Tactics of Social Influence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mehrabian, Albert. 1981. Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Meyer, J. P. and N. J. Allen. 1991. “A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment.” Human Resource Management Review, 1:61–89. Miller, Gary. 2000. “Above Politics: Credible Commitment and Efficiency in the Design of Public Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2):289–327. Norman, W. T. 1963. “Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attributes: Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination Personality Ratings.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66:574–583. Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Powell, F. Chuck, and J. W. Wanzenried. 1995. “Do Current Measures of Dimensions of Source Credibility Produce Stable Outcomes in Replicated Tests?” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81:675–687. Ross, L., and R.E. Nisbett. 1991. The Person and the Situation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Russ, Travis L., Cheri J. Simonds, and Stephen K. Hunt. 2003. “Coming Out in the Classroom…An Occupational Hazard?: The Influence of Sexual Orientation on Teacher Credibility and Perceived Student Learning.” Communication Abstracts, 26(1):3–151. Salemi, Michael K. 2002. “An Illustrated Case for Active Learning.” Southern Economic Journal, 68:721– 731. Shepsle, Kenneth. 1991. “Discretion, Institutions, and the Problem of Government Commitment.” In Pierre Bordieu and James S. Coleman, eds., Social Theory for a Changing Society. New York: Westview Press. Teven, J., and J. McCroskey. 1997. “The Relationship of Perceived Teacher Caring with Student Learning and Teacher Evaluation.” Communication Education, 46:1–9. Tuppen, C. J. S. 1974. “Dimensions of Communicator Credibility: An Oblique Solution.” Speech Monographs, 41:253–260. Watson, David L., Debra A. Kessler, and Samia Kalla. 1996. “Active Learning Exercises are More Motivating than Quizzes for Underachieving College Students.” Psychological Reports, 78:131–134. Whitehead, J. L. 1968. “Factors of Source Credibility.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54:59–63. Wilson, Rick K. and Carl M. Rhodes. 1997. “Leadership and Credibility in N-Person Coordination Games.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(6):767–791.

Holona LeAnne Ochs is an assistant professor of political science at Howard University. She has worked as a licensed clinical marriage and family therapist and professional counselor specializing in trauma-related disorders. Her interests include public policy and administration, trust, and credibility.

Journal of Public Affairs Education 507