UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of symbolic modeling and behaviour rehearsal on assertive training with prison inmates Gentile, Andrew Salvatore 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A1 G45.pdf [ 6.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094031.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094031-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094031-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094031-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094031-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094031-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094031-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094031-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094031.ris

Full Text

The E f f e c t s of Symbolic Modeling and Behaviour Rehearsal on A s s e r t i v e T r a i n i n g w i t h P r i s o n Inmates by ANDREW SALVATORE GENTILE M.A., St. John's U n i v e r s i t y , 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Psychology Department) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 19 76 «2> Andrew Salvatore Gentile, 1976 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced d e g r e e at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e tha t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date XlJ Z? i i A b s t r a c t Although the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g has been i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h a wide v a r i e t y of c l i n i c a l and n o n - c l i n i c a l populations, few s t u d i e s have i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these techniques w i t h p r i s o n inmates. This study i n v e s t i -gated the use of symbolic modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l to i n c r e a s e a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s and.decrease i n a p p r o p r i a t e aggressive-ness w i t h p r i s o n inmates. T h i r t y male inmates volunteered f o r a four week a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g programme and were randomly assigne to a modeling, behaviour r e h e a r s a l , and a placebo c o n t r o l group. Ten other subjects were used as a t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l group. The modeling group rece i v e d videotape-mediated modeling i n which p o s i t i v e and negative a s s e r t i o n s were demonstrated to 16 standar-dized s i t u a t i o n s . The b e h a v i o u r a l r e h e a r s a l group r e c e i v e d op-p o r t u n i t i e s to shape and p r a c t i c e appropriate a s s e r t i o n s to the same s i t u a t i o n s without the a i d of viewing f i l m e d models. The placebo c o n t r o l group viewed di s c u s s i o n f i l m s and the t e s t - r e t e s t group rece i v e d no treatment i n t e r v e n t i o n . S e l f - r e p o r t e d mea-sures, i n - l a b o r a t o r y b e h a v i o u r a l r a t i n g s , and i n v i v o behavioura assessments were used to assess changes i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s , ag-gressiveness, and a n x i e t y . Results i n d i c a t e d that inmates i n the treatment groups s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased t h e i r v e r b a l a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s ( i . e . , v e r b a l content), but not t h e i r non-verbal s k i l l s ( i . e . , eye contact, l a t e n c y , loudness). The e f f i c a c y of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g techniques i n regard to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on v e r b a l and non-verbal s k i l l s components and aggressiveness are discussed. On i n v i v o b e h a v i o u r a l measures of a s s e r t i v e n e s s observed on the wards no d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t e d between treatments and con-t r o l s . This i n d i c a t e d that v e r b a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s learned i n t r a i n -ing d i d not g e n e r a l i z e to other u n f a m i l i a r s i t u a t i o n s . Also the behavioural changes i n the l a b o r a t o r y occurred without c o r r e s -ponding changes i n s e l f - r e p o r t e d a s s e r t i v e n e s s . The discrepancy between f i n d i n g s as measured by i n - l a b o r a t o r y assessments and i n v i v o assessments i s discussed i n terms of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s k i l l s environment r e c e p t i v i t y to change, and other f a c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s . A l l the response components were a f f e c t e d by the p a r t i c u l a r type of s i t u a t i o n presented. Assertiveness changed as a f u n c t i o n of s o c i a l - i n t e r p e r s o n a l context of p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s i u t a t i o n s , negative h o s t i l e s i t u a t i o n s , and s i t u a t i o n s simulated i n s i d e and outside the p r i s o n s e t t i n g . These f i n d i n g s suggest that f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ought to develop methodologies f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the environmental s t i m u l i which i n f l u e n c e a s s e r t i v e n e s s i n order to t r a i n c l i e n t s i n s i t u a t i o n s r e l a t e d to t h e i r a s s e r t i v e d e f i c i t s . Table of Contents A b s t r a c t 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n • • • .3 Method . . . . . i . 31 Results . . 47 D i s c u s s i o n 71 References 93 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . 109 V L i s t of Tables Table I Table I I Table I I I Table IV Table V Dependent Measures 3 8 Representative Test Items 4 1 Summary of the S i g n i f i c a n t E f f e c t s of each Behavioural Measure Latency of Response 50 Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups . . 57 A s s e r t i v e Content Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X Groups 59. Table VI A s s e r t i v e Content (Transfer) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X Groups . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Table V I I A s s e r t i v e Content (Transfer) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups . . 64^  Table V I I I Responsiveness (Number of Non-Responses) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X Groups 65 Table IX Responsiveness (Number of Non-Responses) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups .. . 6 8 Table X Summary of the S i g n i f i c a n t E f f e c t s of i n v i v o Behavioural and S e l f Report Scales . . . . . . . 69 L i s t of Figures Figure 1 . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 2 . . . . . . . . . . 54 Figure 3 . . 56 F i g u r e 4 . 61 Figure 5 . . . 67 vii Appendices Appendix A S o c i a l S k i l l s Programme . . . . . . . . 109 Appendix B . l D i r e c t i o n s Audiotaped I n s t r u c t i o n s to the Behavioural Test of Asser t i v e n e s s . . . .' . . . . 110 Appendix B.2 Behavioural Test of As s e r t i v e n e s s . . . . . I l l Appendix B.3 Ratings on 62 S i t u a t i o n s from High D i f f i c u l t y to Low D i f f i c u l t y 115 Appendix B.4 Behavioural Test of Transfer 117 Appendix C l I n t e r r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y 118 Appendix C.2 Concordance Between Raters . 119 Appendix C.3 Mean Di f f e r e n c e s Between Raters . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Appendix D Check on D i f f e r e n t i a l Lying and Defensiveness Among the Groups 121 Appendix E Check on Therapist Bias 122 Appendix F Session by Session Synopsis of S k i l l s Programme . . . . 123 Appendix G.l 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Latency of Response 127 Appendix G.2 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Loudness of Voice . . 128 Appendix G.3 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Eye Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Appendix G.4 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of A s s e r t i v e Content . . . 130 Appendix G.5 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Aggressive Content 131 viii Appendices (continued) Appendix G. 6 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Number of Non-Responses 132 Appendix G.7 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA.on Mean Scores of Latency of Response (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) . . . . . . . . 133 Appendix G.8 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Loudness of Voice (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) . . . . . . . . 134 Appendix G.9 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Eye Contact (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) 135 Appendix G.10 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of A s s e r t i v e Content (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) . . . . . . . . 136 Appendix G.11 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Aggressive Content (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) . . 137 Appendix G.12 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Number of Non-Responses (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) . . . . . 138 Appendix H.l In v i v o A s s e r t i v e n e s s ^ ( s t a f f observation at post treatment) 139 Appendix H.2 I n v i v o Assertiveness ( s t a f f o b s ervation at one month follow-up) . 140 Appendix 1.1 4 X 2 ANOVA on Rathus A s s e r t i v e Inventory . . . . . . . 141 Appendix 1.2 4 X 2 ANOVA.on Buss-Durkee F u l l Score . . . . . . . . . . 142 Appendix 1.3 4 X 2 ANOVA on Buss-Durkee Verbal A s s a u l t Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Appendix 1.4 4 X 2 ANOVA on Temple Fear Survey F u l l Score . '.. . . . 144 Appendix 1.5 4 X 2 ANOVA on Temple Fear Survey S o c i a l Competence Scale 145 ix Appendices (continued) • Appendix J D e s c r i p t i o n of A s s e r t i v e Content and Aggressive Content Measure . . . . . . . 146 Appendix K.1 Means and Standard Deviations of Behavioural Measures (P r e t e s t ) , • 147 Appendix K.2 Means and Standard Deviations of Behavioural Measures ( P o s t t e s t ) . . . . . . . 148 Appendix K.3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of Behavioural Measures 149 Acknowledgements The w r i t e r wishes to thank the numerous s t a f f at l o c a l prisons for t h e i r e f f o r t s and cooperation throughout the course of t h i s r e -search. Without the d i r e c t i o n of Dr. B. Landon and his s t a f f who computerized test scoring, spent hours r a t i n g videotapes, continu-ously provided rooms and equipment, and who perservered the many obstacles that an experimental project faces i n an applied s e t t i n g , the project would not have survived conception much less comple-t i o n . My s p e c i a l thanks to the numerous inmates who go unnamed but not unrecognized for the development of videotape films e s s e n t i a l to the t r a i n i n g programme, and to those inmates who gave up t h e i r time to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the programme. I. wish to t r u l y thank Brian Fogarty, whose assistance was an e s s e n t i a l ingredient and whose friendship i s a continuing by-product of the project. I o f f e r my thanks to Drs. T. Rodgers, R. Hakstien, and J. Johnson whose expert s t a t i s t i c a l advice and time consuming consultations were offered generously and consistently (and usually without appoint-ment!). To my proof-reader and t y p i s t , S. DeBons, my appreciation does not seem to equal the pains she experienced with me through r e v i s i o n s , and the weekends she generously gave up through each one of them. xi I am g r a t e f u l to my thesis committee, Drs. K. Craig, B. Knox, and L. Greenberg. Their guidance over each phase of the project, the many meetings, and th e i r constructive appraisals have made the work academically and personally rewarding. To Dr. P. 0. Davidson, my thesis advisor, I can only o f f e r a deep gratitude f o r the support and.strength he offered i n hard times, for h i s expert assistance which seemed to shine l i g h t on darker chapters and darker days, and fo r his consistent concern which was always there f o r the asking. LEAVES 1 AND 2 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING. &,n<J X do ™>f exist 7 ^ e 3 3 The E f f e c t s of Symbolic Modeling and Behaviour Rehearsal  i n an A s s e r t i v e T r a i n i n g Programme w i t h P r i s o n Inmates A s s e r t i v e expression i s the appropriate expression of one's r i g h t s and f e e l i n g s . U nfortunately, the e a r l y a p p l i c a t i o n s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g w i t h s o c i a l l y c o n s t r i c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s has l e d to undue emphasis on t r a i n i n g i n h i b i t e d i n d i v i d u a l s to a g g r e s s i v e l y speak up f o r t h e i r personal r i g h t s . In t h i s r e -gard Lazarus (1971) s t a t e s , "The behaviour theory l i t e r a t u r e devotes a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e space on a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g to the expression of anger and to the need to be able to c o n t r a d i c t and v e r b a l l y a t t a c k other people (p. 138)." Quite to the con-t r a r y , aggressive m a n i f e s t a t i o n s are not a s s e r t i v e and i n f a c t , must be c l a s s i f i e d as non-assertive to the extent that they exemplify the i n a p p r o p r i a t e management of emotions. Since "almost none of the research on a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i s devoted ... to h e l p i n g people express p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s (Hersen, E i s l e r , M i l l e r , 19 73, p. 506)", the a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s programme developed i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has been designed to a) i n c r e a s e expression of p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s and b) decrease the expression of aggressive interchanges. The scope of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviours considered " a s s e r t i v e " i n c l u d e the non-aggressive expression of anger as w e l l as p o s i t i v e expressions of warmth and concern f o r others. A s s e r t i v e behaviour has been defined, f o r the purposes of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , 4 as "the proper expression of any emotion other than anxiety towards another person (Wolpe, 1973, p. 81)." Aggressive behaviour on the other hand has been defined as the v e r b a l l y abusive or h o s t i l e expression of one's f e e l i n g s . Procedures used to help i n d i v i d u a l s i n c r e a s e t h e i r a s s e r t i v e expression u s u a l l y i n v o l v e behaviour r e h e a r s a l i n which the t h e r a p i s t demonstrates a l t e r n a t i v e responses to d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s i n the c l i e n t ' s l i f e and has the c l i e n t r o l e play those responses. Modeling procedures have a l s o been used i n which f i l m e d models who are t r a i n e d to high l e v e l s of a s s e r t i v e n e s s demonstrate s o c i a l l y a s s e r t i v e responses. Both behaviour r e h e a r s a l and modeling techniques have been used i n a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g w i t h a wide v a r i e t y of c l i n i c a l p o p ulations. More r e c e n t l y , these techniques have been a p p l i e d i n cases such as homosexual p e d o p h i l i a (Edwards, 1972; Laws & Serber, 1971), u r i n a r y r e t e n t i o n (Barnard, F l e s l e r , Steinbrook, 1966), m a r i t a l d i s c o r d (Fensterheim, 1972; E i s l e r , M i l l e r , Hersen & A l f o r d , 1974), h a l l u c i n a t o r y behaviour (Nydegger, 1972), s e l f - m u t i l a t i o n (Roback, Fragn, Gunby & Tuters, 1973), and w i t h other cases i n which i n -creased i n t e r p e r s o n a l adjustment has i n d i r e c t l y a l l e v i a t e d the pre^ senting symptomotology. Larger s c a l e d s t u d i e s t e s t i n g the e f f i c a c y of group a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g w i t h d i f f e r e n t populations have been conducted using student populations (Lawrence, 1970; Hedquist and Weinhold, 1970; Rathus, 1972; G a l a s s i , G a l l a s i , and L i t z , 1974; Gormally, H i l l , O t i s , and Rainey, 1975), n e u r o t i c populations 5 (Lomont, G i l n e r , Specter, & Skinner, 1969; P e r c e l l , Berwick, B e i g e l , 1974; Goldsmith & M c F a l l , 1975), and ch r o n i c s c h i z o -phrenic populations (Serber & Nelson, 1971; Hanson & Bencomo, 1972; Weinman, G e l b a r t , Wallace, & Post, 1972; F i e l d & Test, 1972). Although the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g has been docu-mented i n s t u d i e s using a wide v a r i e t y of c l i n i c a l and n o n - c l i n i -c a l p o p u l a t i o n s , few s t u d i e s have t e s t e d i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s w i t h c r i m i n a l a n t i s o c i a l populations. One purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to assess the e f f i c a c y of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g procedures w i t h a p r i s o n inmate p o p u l a t i o n . Inmates who f r e q u e n t l y e x h i b i t explosive.'.outbreaks and who have not learned acceptable modes of anger expression might b e n e f i t from an a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g programme. In f a c t , s e v e r a l s t u d i e s o f f e r t e n t a t i v e support f o r the usefulness of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g to decrease a n t i s o c i a l aggression (Sarason, 1968; Rimm, Hunziker, & Keson, 1971; MacPherson, 1972; Scopetta, 1972; Wallace, Teigen, Liberman, & Baker, 1973; Rimm, H i l l , Brown, & S t u a r t , 1974; Foy, E i s l d e r , & P i n k s t o n , 1975). Chittenden (1942) tes t e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a modified mo-d e l i n g treatment f o r hyperaggressive pre-school c h i l d r e n . She had c h i l d r e n observe 15 minute plays w i t h d o l l s which portrayed ag-g r e s s i v e s o l u t i o n s to i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s and other plays which depicted cooperative and a s s e r t i v e s o l u t i o n s to the same \ s i t u a t i o n s . P o s t t e s t data showed that t r a i n e d c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s aggressive behaviour than c o n t r o l s , however, no corresponding increase i n cooperative behaviour occurred. Extreme behaviours of some c h i l d r e n d i d seem to be e f f e c t i v e l y a l t e r e d . Gittelman (1965) documented the usefulness of b e h a v i o u r a l l y r e -hearsing a s s e r t i v e responses w i t h a group of 7 boys a g e s ^ l ^ - l ^ - ' years o l d . This c l i n i c a l r e p o r t i n d i c a t e d that aggressive be^ haviour was s u c c e s s f u l l y modified a f t e r 12 group sessions., I t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine f rom t h i s report whether the re d u c t i o n of aggressive behaviour occurred i n the r e a l l i f e s e t t i n g s or i n the group sessions. Rimm, Keyson, and Hunziker (1971) i n a p i l o t i n v e s t i g a t i o n administered 6 hours of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g to a d u l t male p a t i e n t s h o s p i t a l i z e d due to aggressive acting-out behaviour. The t r e a t -ment group demonstrated significantly..more improvement i n a s s e r t tiveness than the placebo c o n t r o l group. In.a l a t e r study, Rimm, H i l l , Brown and Stuart (1974) test e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of 8.v. . hours of r o l e p l a y i n g i n anger-engenderingisituationsct' The subjects were 13 male students who reported problems of temper management. The seven treatment subjects improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y more on be-h a v i o u r a l measures of as s e r t i v e n e s s than the s i x attention-placebo c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . Other s e l f - r e p o r t measures such as a s s e r t i v e i n v e n t o r i e s , s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e s c a l e s , locus of c o n t r o l i n v e n t o r i e s y i e l d e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups. Since no i n v i v o measures were used i n t h i s study, the e f f e c t s of a s s e r t i v e -ness t r a i n i n g must be l i m i t e d to o b j e c t i v e l y rated a s s e r t i v e n e s s i n the l a b o r a t o r y . The r e s u l t s of the Rimm et, al.., (1974) study suggests the use of a s i t u a t i o n a l l y - s p e c i f i c b ehavioural t r a i n i n g programme to increase a s s e r t i v e n e s s i n p r o v o c a t i v e s i t u a t i o n s . Scopetta (1972) examined the e f f i c a c y of a modeling treatment i n the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of j u v e n i l e offenders. F o r t y - f i v e i n s t i t u -t i o n a l i z e d male offenders were randomly assigned to one of three groups u t i l i z i n g three v a r i a t i o n s df modeling. One group rece i v e d l i v e modeling and r o l e p l a y i n g , the second group rece i v e d l i v e modeling, r o l e playing, and reinforcement f o r c o r r e c t i m i t a t i o n s , and the t'Hir.d group rece i v e d v e r b a l symbolic modeling which served as the d i s c u s s i o n c o n t r o l group. A f t e r nine 1% hour.osessions both modeling groups showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more improvement than the c o n t r o l group ( i . e . , decrease i n a n t i s o c i a l behaviour on four b e h a v i o u r a l measures). The r e s u l t s of Scopetta's '(1972) work suggest that modeling and r o l e p l a y i n g are u s e f u l components ciof ' a treatment programme designed to decrease i n t e r p e r s o n a l aggres-siveness. I n a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l case s t u d i e s have supported the use of a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g to decrease aggressive i n t e r p e r s o n a l com-munication. MacPherson (1972) attempted to increase the frequency 8 of a 45 year o l d housewife's a s s e r t i v e communications and to de-crease her i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y aggressive responses to her mother. Twenty r e l e v a n t s i t u a t i o n s were e l i c i t e d from the p a t i e n t and a s s e r t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s were developed by the p a t i e n t and t h e r a p i s t . Treatment i n v o l v e d over one hundred p r a c t i c e t r i a l s i n which a s s e r t i v e responses were s o c i a l l y p r a i s e d and non-assertive r e -sponses were punished by shock.• F a i l u r e to respond to s t i m u l i w i t h i n f i v e seconds was a l s o followed by shock. Assessment con-s i s t e d i n monitoring the frequency of aggressive and a s s e r t i v e r e -sponses to novel s i t u a t i o n s interposed w i t h t r a i n e d s i t u a t i o n s . This treatment combination of s e l e c t i v e operant'and p a v l o v i a n c o n d i t i o n i n g r e s u l t e d i n increases i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s and decreases i n aggression. Wallace, Teigen, Liberman, and Baker (1973) i n a s i m i l a r com-b i n a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g and operant c o n d i t i o n i n g t r e a t e d a 22 year o l d brain-damaged male f o r a s s a u l t i v e behaviour. Contin-gency c o n t r a c t i n g using home p r i v i l e g e s as rewards was used to suppress aggressive outbreaks w h i l e a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g was used to d i s c r i m i n a t e and p r a c t i c e s o c i a l l y appropriate a l t e r n a t i v e s . Re-s u l t s at follow-up showed that aggressive a s s a u l t s were reduced to one i n c i d e n t . Unfortunately, the d i f f e r e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g vs contingency c o n t r a c t i n g was not assessed i n t h i s study. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n reducing 9 the subject's a s s a u l t i v e behaviour cannot be c l e a r l y determined. Other case s t u d i e s , however, have provided suggestive evidence f o r the use of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n cases of a n t i s o c i a l aggression. Foy, E i s l e r , and Pi n k s t o n (1975) used modeling i n the case of a 56 year o l d man who manifested e x p l o s i v e rage i n s i t u a t i o n s w i t h h i s w i f e and boss. B a s e l i n e data was c o l l e c t e d on the number of h o s t i l e , i r r e l e v a n t , o v e r ly-compliant, and request-making com-ments. In treatment the t h e r a p i s t modeled a s s e r t i v e responses and i n s t r u c t e d the p a t i e n t to p r a c t i c e these a s s e r t i v e responses i n simulated s i t u a t i o n s . Results i n d i c a t e d that the f i r s t three u n a s s e r t i v e t a r g e t behaviours decreased and that a ppropriate r e -quest-making comments increased. From reviewing the research i n which a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g was used to decrease v e r b a l aggression i t appears that a s s e r t i v e t r a i n -i ng has been e f f e c t i v e w i t h aggressive pre-schoolers (Chittenden, 1942), aggressive delinquents (Gittelman, 1975; Scopetta, 1972), and n o n - h o s p i t a l i z e d a s s a u l t i v e a d u l t s (MacPherson, 1972; Wallace et a l . , 1973; Foy et a l . , 1975). While f e w . c l i n i c a l s t u d i e s have i s o l a t e d the components of modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l tech-niques ( i . e . , l i v e modeling, symbolic modeling, d i r e c t e d r o l e p l a y i n g , improvised r o l e p l a y i n g , coaching, etc.) and assessed t h e i r r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n reducing v e r b a l aggression, model-ing and behaviour r e h e a r s a l procedures have been found to be use-f u l as techniques to r a i s e a s s e r t i v e n e s s . 10 Modeling Modeling i s a process i n which an i n d i v i d u a l l e arns new be-h a v i o u r a l p a t t e r n s as a consequence of having observed a model performing the d e s i r e d behaviour. " I m i t a t i v e l e a r n i n g " , "obser-v a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g " , " v i c a r i o u s l e a r n i n g " are a l l l a b e l s which r e -f e r to the modeling process i n which an i n d i v i d u a l s y m b o l i c a l l y acquires a response not by t r i a l and e r r o r performance, but by viewing the behaviour performed by another i n d i v i d u a l . Laboratory experiments which document changes i n autonomic r e a c t i v i t y as a r e s u l t of observing a model ( C r a i g , 1968) as w e l l as other s t u d i e s which report modeling's e f f e c t on v e r b a l behaviour ( M a r l a t t , 1972) underscore the potency of modeling i n f l u e n c e s . The m o d i f i c a t i o n of s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g statements (Whalen, 1969), a f f e c t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e v e r b a l i z a t i o n s (Green & M a r l a t t , 1965) and other complex v e r b a l behaviours by s o c i a l modeling i n f l u e n c e s suggest that modeling might be important to i n c l u d e i n a s s e r t i v e -n e s s - s k i l l s programmes. For example, people might p r o f i t from watching others demonstrate a s s e r t i v e behaviour and no t i n g the s p e c i f i c d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e i r own behaviour. Bandura (1969) underscores the c l i n i c a l usefulness of modeling approaches i n the f o l l o w i n g statement: One of the fundamental means by which new modes of behaviour are acquired and e x i s t i n g patterns a r e modified i s modeling. Indeed, research conducted w i t h i n the framework of s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory demonstrated that v i r t u a l l y a l l l e a r n i n g phenomena r e s u l t i n g from d i r e c t experiences can occur on a 11 v i c a r i o u s b a s i s through observation of another person's behaviour and i t s consequences to them. Thus, f o r example, one can acquire i n t r i c a t e response patterns merely by observing the performances of appropriate models; emotional responses can be conditioned o b s e r v a t i o n a l l y by w i t n e s s i n g the a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s of others undergoing p a i n f u l or p l e a s u r a b l e experiences; f e a r f u l or avoidant behaviour can be extinguished v i c a r i o u s l y by observation of modeled ap-proach behavior toward the feared objects without any e f f e c t s accruing to the former; modeling procedures are i d e a l l y s u i t e d f o r e f f e c t i n g d i v e r s e outcomes i n c l u d -i n g the e l i m i n a t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l d e f i c i t s , r e d u c t i o n of excessive fears and i n h i b i t i o n s . . . (p. 118) A wealth of l i t e r a t u r e supports Bandura's (1969) contention regarding the c l i n i c a l usefulness of modeling treatments. Model-ing treatments have been a p p l i e d i n v i c a r i o u s l y e x t i n g u i s h i n g avoidance of snakes (Bandura, Blanchard, T i t t e r , 1969; Geer & T u r t l e t a u b , 1967), dogs (Bandura, Grusec, & Menlove, 1967; Bandura & Menlove, 1968), and heights ( R i t t e r , 1968, 1969). However, as E i s l e r , Hersen and M i l l e r (1973) s t a t e , "there are few e x p e r i -mental s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g modeling's e f f e c t on a d u l t i n t e r -personal behaviour" (P. 2). Although modeling has not been used widely i n cases of i n t e r p e r s o n a l f e a r s , s e v e r a l s t u d i e s document i t s e f f e c t i v e use i n cases w i t h s o c i a l l y i n h i b i t e d and i n t e r -p e r s o n a l l y aggressive c h i l d r e n (Chittenden, 1942; O'Connor, 1969; Gittelman, 1965; Ross, Ross, & Evans, 1971). Modeling f i l m s i n which i n d i v i d u a l s demonstrate s o c i a l l y appropriate behaviours i n anxious s i t u a t i o n s have a l s o been s u c c e s s f u l l y used i n the treatment of unassertive p s y c h i a t r i c populations ( E i s l e r , Hersen, & M i l l e r , 12 1973; G o l d s t e i n , Martens, Hubben, Von B e l l e , Schaaf, Wiersma, and Goedhart, 1973), and u n a s s e r t i v e c o l l e g e populations (Rathus, 1973; Young, Rimm, and Kennedy, 1973). These st u d i e s suggest that modeling approaches appear to help subjects to decrease s o c i a l i n h i b i t i o n s and i n t e r p e r s o n a l aggression. Another procedure used f o r t h i s purpose i s r o l e p l a y i n g . Role P l a y i n g Role p l a y i n g i s another t r a i n i n g technique used to help i n d i -v i d u a l s to overcome s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a l d e f i c i t s and to transmit more extensive s o c i a l r e p e r t o i r e s . The t h e r a p i s t and other p a r t i c i p a n t s execute a l t e r n a t e responses to s i t u a t i o n s i n which the c l i e n t ex-periences excessive a n x i e t y . The c l i e n t attempts to change formerly inadequate and i n e f f e c t u a l responses by p l a y a c t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e a s s e r t i v e r o l e s . By s u c c e s s i v e l y shaping i n h i b i t e d body posture, loudness of v o i c e , f a c i a l expression, appropriate v e r b a l content and other c r i t i c a l components of a s s e r t i v e responses the c l i e n t learns new v e r b a l and nonverbal accompanimentsr-of " s o c i a l l y e f f e c -t i v e responses. Sturm (1965) noted the advantages of behaviour r e h e a r s a l over' t r a d i t i o n a l t a l k therapies^- to shape components of a s s e r t i v e responses. He noted t h a t the s i m u l a t i o n of l i f e -l i k e behaviour maximizes t r a n s f e r of s k i l l s out-of-therapy, and that complex i d e a t i o n a l - b e h a v i o u r a l - p h y s ' i o l o g i c a l response patterns are more e f f e c t i v e l y a l t e r e d by r o l e p l a y i n g techniques than by 13 v e r b a l t h e r a p i e s . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , the opportunity to p r a c t i c e the t o t a l a s s e r t i v e s k i l l complex i n simulated s i t u a t i o n s i s s u p e r i o r to t a l k i n g about behaviour change. Role p l a y i n g has been widely used c l i n i c a l l y (Moreno, 1946; K e l l y , 1955; C o r s i n i , 1966), however, w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e empi-r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n as to i t s e f f i c a c y (Boies, 1972). Behavioural r o l e p l a y i n g has been used i n the context of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g by f a c i l i t a t i n g the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and enactment of more s o c i a l l y a s s e r t i v e modes of behaviour. Several case s t u d i e s r e p o r t the e f f e c t i v e use of behaviour r e h e a r s a l as a component of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g (Cautela, 1966; Lazarus, 1966; Wolpe, 1973; Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966). Most of these c l i n i c a l r e p o r ts d i d not i s o l a t e the treatment e f f e c t s a t t r i -butable to behaviour r e h e a r s a l as opposed to t h e r a p i s t shaping, homework assignments, s i t u a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h i e s , e t c . , and d i d not use c o n t r o l groups. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s which have used c o n t r o l groups reported improvement of a s s e r t i v e r o l e p l a y i n g groups over c o n t r o l group s u b j e c t s . A s s e r t i v e r o l e p l a y i n g has y i e l d e d s i g n i -f i c a n t improvement on b e h a v i o u r a l measures of a s s e r t i v e n e s s when compared to n o n - d i r e c t i v e and a d v i c e - g i v i n g c o n t r o l subjects (Lazarus, 1966), p l a c e b o - a t t e n t i o n c o n t r o l subjects (McFall & Marston, 1970), i n s i g h t and c o n t r o l subjects (Lomont, et. a l . , 1969), s o c i a l l e a r n i n g and t r a d i t i o n a l therapy c o n t r o l subjects (Hed-q u i s t et a l . , 1970), and d i s c u s s i o n and c o n t r o l subjects (Rathus, 1972). i-5 M c F a l l and Marston (1970) developed semi-automated and stan-dardized behaviour r e h e a r s a l procedures and used a combination of d i r e c t b e h a v i o u r a l measures, p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures, i n v i v o mea-sures, and s e l f - r e p o r t measures as t h e i r improvement c r i t e r i a . Twenty students given two-forms of behaviour r e h e a r s a l made s i g n i -f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r improvement than c o n t r o l s on these assessments. These r e s u l t s underscore the p o t e n t i a l c l i n i c a l use of behaviour r e h e a r s a l to expand a response r e p e r t o i r e u s e f u l f o r the imple-menting a p p r o p r i a t e l y a s s e r t i v e behaviour. I t i s not s u p r i s i n g that i f symbolic modeling produced s i g n i -f i c a n t increases i n a s s e r t i v e behaviour ( E i s l e r , Hersen, and M i l l e r , 1973a; G o l d s t e i n et a l . , 1973; Rathus, 1973a) and behaviour r e h e a r s a l produces s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n a s s e r t i v e behaviour ( C a u t e l l a , 1966; Lazarus, 1966; Lomont et a l . , 1969; Wolpe, 1973; Wolpe and Lazarus, 1966; M c F a l l and Marston, 1970) that these treatment approaches used together a l s o ought to y i e l d improvement i n asser-t i v e behaviour. That i s , subjects who both view h i g h l y a s s e r t i v e models and rehearse a s s e r t i v e responses ought to show improvement i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s s k i l l s . Outcome s t u d i e s using modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l i n combination:.have y i e l d e d these not s u p r i s i n g r e s u l t s w i t h chronic schizophrenics (Gutride, G o l d s t e i n , and Hunter, 1973), i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d delinquents (Scopetta, 1972) and c o l l e g e students ( G a l a s s i , G a l a s s i , and L i t z , 1974). While s t u d i e s using'.modeling p l u s 15 behaviour r e h e a r s a l y i e l d r e s u l t s i n which treatment groups demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y more improvement than c o n t r o l groups, there i s a question as to whether modeling i s s u p e r i o r to r o l e p l a y i n g . The question of whether modeling or behaviour r e h e a r s a l pro-cedures i s s u p e r i o r i s important f o r a number of reasons. In terms of treatment i t i s important to a s c e r t a i n whether d i f f e r e n t populations have a d i f f e r e n t i a l r e s p o n s i v i t y to modeling vs behaviour r e h e a r s a l procedures or whether the nature or s e v e r i t y of one's behavioural d e f i c i t would i n d i c a t e modeling vs b e h a v i o u r a l r e h e a r s a l as a treatment of choice. For example, i t may be that i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a n x i e t y - i n h i b i t e d responses are more appro-p r i a t e l y t r e a t e d by modeling procedures due to i t s anxiety reduc-ing e f f e c t s (Bandura, 1969) whereas i n d i v i d u a l s who simply do not have a p p r o p r i a t e l y a s s e r t i v e responses i n t h e i r b e h a v i o u r a l r e p e r t o i r e r e q u i r e behaviour r e h e a r s a l to teach them these r e -sponses (Rathus, 1972). Furthermore, i t i s important to determine the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of modeling vs behaviour r e h e a r s a l upon p a r t i c u l a r components of a s s e r t i v e behaviour ( i . e . , response time, eye contact, loudness, a s s e r t i v e . c o n t e n t , e t c . ) . For example, an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h d e f i c i t s on some components of as-s e r t i v e responses but not others could be t r e a t e d w i t h only those techniques which would maximally a f f e c t the d e f i c i e n t r e -sponse component. In gene r a l , however, i n v e s t i g a t i o n s as to 16 the r e l a t i v e s u p e r i o r i t y of modeling vs behaviour rehearsal have yie l d e d contradictory f i n d i n g s . ; Sarason (1968) and Sarason and Ganzer (1969) studied the ef-fects of a r o l e playing group vs a modeling group ( i . e . , l i v e plus symbolic modeling) upon the s o c i a l l y appropriate responses of delinquents. The delinquents, matched i n age, s e v e r i t y and chroni-c i t y , were randomly assigned to a r o l e playing group and a model-ing group. Each group received f i f t e e n 40 minute sessions. The modeling group showed s i g n i f i c a n t improvement over the r o l e playing group on both a t t i t u d i n a l measures ( i . e . , Whaler's S e l f - D e s c r i p t i o n Inventory) and behavioural measures ( i . e . , r a t i n g scales, weekly behaviour summary), but not on the s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n measure ( i . e . , semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l ) ; Real and i d e a l difference scores re-s u l t e d i n the modeling group's greater d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with them-selves a f t e r viewing models. Friedman (1971) i n an experimental study investigated the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of r o l e playing, modeling ( l i v e ) , modeling plus r o l e playing, improvised r o l e playing, a s s e r t i v e s c r i p t s , and non-assertive s c r i p t s . F i f t y male and 52 female college students were pre-selected as low a s s e r t i v e subjects on the basis of t h e i r pre-test scores. Friedman used his Action S i t u a t i o n Inventory ( s e l f - r e p o r t ) and judged tape recordings made i n a l i v e , i nterpersonally s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n (behavioural measure) as measures to screen low a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s . A f t e r two weeks of treatment the r e s u l t s showed that the modeling plus r o l e playing group improved more than other 17 groups. An important a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g which adds to. the controversy over whether modeling i s s u p e r i o r to behaviour r e h e a r s a l i s that the r o l e p l a y i n g groups ( i . e . , d i r e c t e d and improvised) d i d not d i f f e r from the l i v e modeling group on b e h a v i o u r a l measures of .'assertiveness. This f i n d i n g i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y to Sarason's (1968) f i n d i n g from which he concluded that modeling was s u p e r i o r to behaviour r e h e a r s a l on beha-v i o u r a l measures of a s s e r t i v e n e s s . Other s t u d i e s which have attempted to assess the s u p e r i o r i t y of modeling vs behaviour r e h e a r s a l i n combined forms do not y i e l d c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s i n the controversy regarding the s u p e r i o r i t y of behaviour r e h e a r s a l over modeling. M c F a l l and Twentymen (1973) i n a s e r i e s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s attempted to assess the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of symbolic model-i n g , behaviour r e h e a r s a l , and coaching. They d i d t h i s by using treatment groups c o n s i s t i n g of modeling plus behaviour r e h e a r s a l plus coaching (M + BR + C), modeling plus behaviour r e h e a r s a l (M + BR), modeling plus coaching (M + C), behaviour r e h e a r s a l plus coaching (BR + C), behaviour r e h e a r s a l (BR), and no treatment c o n t r o l s . They found that no s i g n i f i c a n t p o s t t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s on s e l f - r e p o r t e d and b e h a v i o u r a l measures of a s s e r t i v e n e s s r e s u l t e d between the M + BR + C group and the BR + C group. This r e s u l t i n d i c a t e d that M added very l i t t l e over and above the e f f e c t s of 18 BR + C (rehearsal and coaching). A l s o s i n c e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on the same measures r e s u l t e d between the M + BR and the BR group, i t appeared again that symbolic modeling c o n t r i b u t e d n e g l i g i b l y to o v e r a l l e f f e c t s . In a second experiment, M c F a l l and Twentymen (1973) r e p l i c a t e d t h i s f i n d i n g . These r e s u l t s are not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h modeling's s u b s t a n t i a t e d r o l e i n r a i s i n g a s s e r t i v e n e s s ( E i s l e r , Hersen, and M i l l e r , 1973; G o l d s t e i n , et a l . , 1973; Rathus, 1973a). M c F a l l and Twentymen i n t e r p r e t e d these c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s as o c c u r r i n g i n the case where two known powerful treatments are com-bined when one i s s u f f i c i e n t to produce behaviour change. Unfor-tunately s i n c e the modeling component was never t e s t e d alone ( i . e . , only i t s a d d i t i v e e f f e c t s w i t h r e h e a r s a l or coaching or both were t e s t e d ) , i t i s not p o s s i b l e to determine from t h i s study whether symbolic modeling alone i s s u p e r i o r to behaviour r e h e a r s a l alone. E i s l e r , Hersen, and M i l l e r (.1973) demonstrated that the video -taped modeling of a s s e r t i v e responses to i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s i s an e f f e c t i v e approach to increase those behaviours. The t r e a t -ment groups c o n s i s t e d i n a modeling plus p r a c t i c e group, a prac-t i c e - c o n t r o l , and a t e s t r e - t e s t c o n t r o l . The modeling plus p r a c t i c e group viewed videotaped models and were asked to p r a c t i c e responses by enacting them, the p r a c t i c e c o n t r o l s were i n s t r u c t e d to do the same without having viewed modeled responses, and the t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l s 19 were simply given pre-post measures. S i g n i f i c a n t changes of the modeling plus practice.;group vs the p r a c t i c e - c o n t r o l group i n d i -cated that modeling e f f e c t s improve a s s e r t i v e responses over and above p r a c t i c e alone. 'These r e s u l t s c o n t r a d i c t M c F a l l and Twentymen's (1973) f i n d i n g of the n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t of modeling. I f modeling e f f e c t s do not add" much to p r a c t i c e one would not ex-pect s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the modeling plus p r a c t i c e and the p r a c t i c e c o n t r o l group. In summary, treatments c o n s i s t i n g p r i m a r i l y of symbolic model-in g have r e s u l t e d i n s u c c e s s f u l increases of a s s e r t i v e n e s s com-pared to c o n t r o l s . Treatments c o n s i s t i n g p r i m a r i l y of beha v i o u r a l r e h e a r s a l as compared to c o n t r o l s have r e s u l t e d i n s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s . The use of these techniques together has a l s o q u i t e expectedly r e s u l t e d i n s i g n f i c a n t improvement of a s s e r t i v e n e s s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n s on r e l a t i v e s u p e r i o r i t y of one approach over the, other, however, have y i e l d e d equivocal r e s u l t s . Some st u d i e s using a modeling group and a behaviour r e h e a r s a l group have found that modeling i s super-i o r to behaviour r e h e a r s a l (Sarason, 1968), whereas other s t u d i e s have shown that n e i t h e r i s s u p e r i o r (Friedman, 1971). Studies i n -d i r e c t l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e i r r e l a t i v e s u p e r i o r i t y ( i . e . , t h e i r a d d i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n i n combinations of modeling—behaviour r e h e a r s a l procedures) a l s o y i e l d c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s w i t h one study con-c l u d i n g that modeling adds l i t t l e to behaviour r e h e a r s a l (McFall &..' 20 Twentymen, 1973), and another study concluding e x a c t l y the op-p o s i t e ( E i s l e r , Hersen, M i l l e r , 1973). I t should be noted that no study has i n v e s t i g a t e d the,.role of symbolic modeling alone versus behaviour r e h e a r s a l alone ( i . e . , Sarason (1968) and Friedman (1971) used l i v e modeling) to c l a r i f y t h i s controversy. Statement of the Problem From a review of the a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e i t i s evident that a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g procedures have been s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p l i e d i n cases of ex p l o s i v e anger and v e r b a l aggression. A s i t u a -t i o n a l l y - s p e c i f i c a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s programme would be b e n e f i c i a l i n teaching inmates a s s e r t i v e , non-aggressive ways of expressing t h e i r r i g h t s and f e e l i n g s i n oppressive p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n s . A s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g would a l s o appear to be h e l p f u l f o r inmates who l a c k the e f f e c t i v e s o c i a l s k i l l s necessary f o r s u c c e s s f u l r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n . For example, techniques used i n a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g have proven use-f u l f o r a c q u i r i n g job seeking and i n t e r v i e w i n g s k i l l s (Prazak, 1969). Inmates who have been i n c a r c e r a t e d f o r long durations may r e q u i r e s o c i a l s k i l l s p r e p a r a t i o n before r e a s s i m i l a t i o n i n t o s o c i e t y i s p o s s i b l e . P e n o l o g i s t s and c r i m i n o l o g i s t s have noted the d i f f i c u l t y that the i n c a r c e r a t e d inmate has i n d i v e s t i n g himself of the inmate-r o l e and resuming o c c u p a t i o n a l and community r o l e s ( T i n s l e y and 21 Grant, 1960). The t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n t h i s study focus on s i t u a -t i o n s that may be encountered i n s i d e p r i s o n as w e l l as outside p r i s o n i n order to promote e f f e c t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s on the p r i s o n ward and i n the community. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the present study i n v e s t i g a t e s the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of an a s s e r t i v e - s k i l l s programme to increase a s s e r t i v e expression and decrease i n t e r p e r s o n a l aggression w i t h p r i s o n inmates. A l s o the review of the a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e suggests that w h i l e modeling used alone i s e f f e c t i v e , i t s combined e f f e c t s w i t h r o l e p l a y i n g i s by no means c l e a r l y understood. Some s t u d i e s document the s u p e r i o r i t y of these combined treatments w h i l e other s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e no a d d i t i v e t h e r a p e u t i c e f f e c t . I n v e s t i g a t i o n s on the r e l a t i v e s u p e r i o r i t y of one procedure over the other have a l s o y i e l d e d e q u i v o c a l r e s u l t s . In view of the c e n t r a l r o l e of c o g n i t i v e - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . , modeling) and overt responding s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . , b e h a v i o u r a l r e h e a r s a l ) i n the a c q u i -s i t i o n and performance of the a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s complex, t h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of symbolic modeling and behaviour r e -h e a r s a l i n an a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g programme. The a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s programme i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the study i n v o l v e d a modeling group i n which subjects viewed f i l m e d models demonstrating a s s e r t i v e responses and a behaviour r e h e a r s a l group i n which subjects p r a c t i c e d asser-t i v e responses. I t should be noted that a behaviour r e h e a r s a l 22 subject p r a c t i c i n g h i s responses i n a group could be considered a l i v e model f o r subjects awaiting t h e i r t u r n . In.;this respect the behaviour r e h e a r s a l group i n v o l v e d both l i v e modeling and r o l e p l a y i n g . A placebo c o n t r o l group and a t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l group were a l s o used. The placebo c o n t r o l group viewed f i l m s of general d i s c u s s i o n s about p r i s o n s and the t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l group r e c e i v e d no i n t e r v e n t i o n at a l l . Hypothesis 1 was that the modeling group and the behaviour r e -h e a r s a l group would demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a s s e r t i v e n e s s than the placebo c o n t r o l group and t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l group on beh a v i o u r a l measures. I t wasr:hypothesized that modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l pro-cedures would produce greater behaviour change than the c o n t r o l groups because there are a greater number of c o r r e c t i v e cues to guide the a c q u i s i t i o n of a s s e r t i v e response patterns a v a i l a b l e to t r e a t -ment s u b j e c t s . The modeling subjects are provided w i t h the a u d i t o r y , g e s t u r a l , and v i s u a l cues from an a s s e r t i v e model. The behaviour r e h e a r s a l group through overt response r e p e t i t i o n , c o r r e c t i v e feed-back and shaping d i r e c t l y engage i n behaviour change. Ne i t h e r of the c o n t r o l groups are provided w i t h these o p p o r t u n i t i e s . In terms of the be h a v i o u r a l measures used to evaluate Hypothesis 1, Ekman (1965) has noted the d i f f e r e n t i a l communication of a f f e c t 23 by head and body cues. In the context of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g Serber (19 72) has focused c l i n i c a l l y on :.the importance of non-verbal com-ponents of a s s e r t i v e behaviour. Experimental s t u d i e s have i s o l a t e d v e r b a l and non-verbal components that are c r i t i c a l to a s s e r t i v e behaviour ( E i s l e r , Hersen, & M i l l e r , 1973, 1974) and r a t i n g s c a l e s to assess these response components were used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Assessment of these components was made i n the la b o r a t o r y to t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s and to s i t u a t i o n s u n f a m i l i a r to the s u b j e c t s . In v i v o behavioural measures to assess changes on the ward have a l s o been used. Behavioural measures were considered s u p e r i o r to s e l f - r e p o r t measures because they provide a d i r e c t measure of overt responses made by the inmates, and are more s e n s i t i v e to s i t u a t i o n a l l y - s p e c i -f i c s k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n than are g l o b a l measures (Hersen, 1973). S e l f - r e p o r t measures were considered of l i m i t e d usefulness i n t e s t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n . The l i t e r a t u r e i n s i m i l a r a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n s has not consi s t e n t l y y i e l d e d f a vorable r e s u l t s on g l o b a l s e l f - r e p o r t measures and i t has been found that these measures tend to have low c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h overt be-h a v i o u r a l measures (Hersen & B e l l a c k , i n p r e s s ) . Measures i n the s e l f - r e p o r t domain were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study i n order to assess v a r i a b l e s that might be important i n e v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c -t i v e n e s s of treatment ( i . e . , l y i n g , defensiveness). Other s e l f -report measures ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , an a s s e r t i v e i n v e n t o r y , and a f e a r t 24 inventory) were i n c l u d e d to enhance t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t i o n a l i z a t i o n s o a s s e r t i v e n e s s . For example, based on Wolpe's (1958) r e c i p r o c a l i n -h i b i t i o n model, the p h y s i o l o g i c a l concomitants of a s s e r t i v e n e s s are incompatible w i t h those of a n x i e t y . An i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between asse r t i v e n e s s and anxiety has a l s o been p o s t u l a t e d c l i n i c a l l y w i t h some support using s e l f - r e p o r t measures (Orenstein, Orenstein, & Carr, 1975). S e l f - r e p o r t f e a r i n v e n t o r i e s were th e r e f o r e i n c l u d e d to monitor any changes i n s e l f - r e p o r t e d anxiety as a r e s u l t of the t r a i n i n g . Hypothesis '2 was that the modeling group and behaviour r e -h e a r s a l groups would demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s aggression than the placebo c o n t r o l group and the t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l group on behavioural measures. While no conceptual r a t i o n a l e s i m i l a r to the r e c i p r o c a l i n -h i b i t i o n model hypothesizes r e l a t i o n s h i p s between as s e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness, c l i n i c i a n s consider expressions of a s s e r t i v e n e s s to be non-aggressive statements of one's f e e l i n g s . That i s , i f an i n d i v i d u a l expresses h i m s e l f a s s e r t i v e l y , he i s f i r m and s t r a i g h t -forward but not aggressive, c o n f r o n t a t i v e , or abusive. I t i s there-for e incumbent upon a treatment programme designed to increase a s s e r -tiveness p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h p r i s o n inmates to demonstrate that there are no corresponding increments i n aggressiveness. This i s necessary to ensure that a s s e r t i v e n e s s i s not being misconstrued by treatment 25 subjects as being v e r b a l l y provocative or aggressive. When one i n -v e s t i g a t e s the assessment instruments used to determine a s s e r t i v e -ness, the d i s t i n c t i o n between as s e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness i s not e a s i l y e s t a b l i s h e d . Contradictory evidence e x i s t s i n st u d i e s which have attempted to r e l a t e a s s e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness. G a l a s s i and G a l a s s i (1975) found that the squared c o r r e l a t i o n s bet-ween the Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory and the College S e l f - E x p r e s -s i o n Scale, an a s s e r t i v e inventory, accounted f o r l e s s than 15% of the variance. These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that a l i m i t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between as s e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness was found using these s e l f -r e p o r t measures. Where one would expect a strong negative r e l a -t i o n s h i p to e x i s t between a s s e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness, no such r e l a t i o n s h i p was found. On the other hand, Gentry and K i r w i n (1972) have noted high negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between the Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory and Bates-Zimmerman C o n s t r i c t i o n Scale, a screener measure f o r low a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s . There i s l i t t l e general agreement that a s s e r t i v e n e s s i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from aggressiveness on s e l f - r e p o r t measures. For t h i s reason, separate s e l f - r e p o r t measures of ass e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness were used in'i t h i s . study. Separate behavioural measures on the a s s e r t i v e con-tent and aggressive content were a l s o used. Hypothesis 3 was that the modeling group would demonstrate no s i g -n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e from the behaviour r e h e a r s a l group i n a s s e r t i v e -ness. No d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e d i c t i o n i s being made as no strong a p r i o r i 26 reason e x i s t s why one procedure should be s u p e r i o r to the other. No d i f f e r e n c e s between these procedures would be p r e d i c t e d because n e i t h e r symbolic modeling nor behaviour r e h e a r s a l as implemented i n t h i s study provides a d d i t i o n a l c o r r e c t i v e mechanisms for'behaviour change. Both treatments provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r change i n terms of modeling e f f e c t s , d i s i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t s , and i n f o r m a t i o n cues. In terms of modeling e f f e c t s , Bandura (1969) has noted that an i n d i v i d u a l may acquire new responses through o b s e r v a t i o n a l l e a r n -i n g which d i d not p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t i n h i s behavioural r e p e r t o i r e . These modeling e f f e c t s would be expected to i n f l u e n c e subjects i n the modeling group who view videotaped models as w e l l as subjects i n the behaviour r e h e a r s a l group who view other subjects p r a c t i c i n g a s s e r t i v e responses. There i s no c o n s i s t e n t evidence that suggests symbolic modeling i s s u p e r i o r to l i v e modeling. No d i f f e r e n t i a l s u p e r i o r i t y between the treatments would therefore be p r e d i c t e d from the type of modeling received i n each treatment group. In terms of d i s i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t s , Bandura (1969) has noted that by observing a model and the p o s i t i v e or negative consequences of the model's behaviour an observer's i n h i b i t i n g response may be respec-t i v e l y strengthened or weakened. These d i s i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t s would be expected to a f f e c t modeling subjects s i n c e extended dialogues i n the modeling f i l m s would depict rewarding or punishing outcomes to 27 a s s e r t i v e responses. In the behaviour r e h e a r s a l group no extended dialogues were rehearsed but enactments were p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d contingent upon approximations to a s s e r t i v e responses. A f t e r the subject enacted a response the experimenter provided p o s i t i v e or nega-t i v e feedback regarding the adequacy of that response. The e x p e r i -menter's approval and contingent reinforcement of subjects' r o l e r e -h e a r s a l s provides knowledge regarding the consequences of newly ac-q u i r e d responses. Friedman (1971) has noted that experimenter ap^ p r o v a l places strong p o s i t i v e value on the a c q u i s i t i o n of a s s e r t i v e behaviour (even when negative consequences may r e s u l t from per-forming a s s e r t i v e behaviour i n the r e a l l i f e s e t t i n g ) . Since both modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l groups r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n regard-i n g the consequences of modeled a s s e r t i o n s , no p r e d i c t i o n regarding the d i f f e r e n t i a l s u p e r i o r i t y of one group over the other can be made on t h i s b a s i s . In terms of i n f o r m a t i o n a l cues ( i . e . , s p e c i f i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a s s e r t i v e responses), modeling appears to o f f e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s s i m i l a r to that of the behaviour r e h e a r s a l group.;, Bandura (1969) has emphasized that a model's performance provides an observer w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n about the enacted response p a t t e r n . T h i s , he suggests, r e s u l t s i n r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of p e r c e p t u a l - c o g n i t i v e images r e t a i n e d by the i n d i v i d u a l and l a t e r u t i l i z e d as symbolic cues to overt responses. Bandura, Grusec, and Menlove (1966) have argued 28 that the s t r e n g t h of the symbolic cues can be enhanced i f the observer i s asked to concurrently v e r b a l i z e the s a l i e n t modeling s t i m u l i . Gerst (1968) has a l s o emphasized the importance of using concise v e r b a l l a b e l s to i n c r e a s e r e t e n t i o n and a c q u i s i t i o n of a model's behaviour. Both groups are provided w i t h s i m i l a r o p p o r t u n i t i e s to reorganize p e r c e p t u a l - c o g n i t i v e cues by viewing film-mediated models (modeling group) or by viewing other subjects i n the group (behaviour r e h e a r s a l group). Opportunities to v e r b a l i z e a s s e r t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a model's behaviour were provided to both groups (e.g., each group had 15 minutes of d i s c u s s i o n to v e r b a l i z e What they had learned from the t r a i n i n g ) . I t appears, iitheref ore, that both groups were provided w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n a l cues to guide overt behaviour. The behaviour r e h e a r s a l group, however, al s o r e c e i v e d the op-p o r t u n i t y to d i r e c t l y engage i n overt r e h e a r s a l . Overt r e h e a r s a l as provided i n the behaviour r e h e a r s a l group cannot be e m p i r i c a l l y supported as s u p e r i o r to covert r e h e a r s a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s which may have occurred as a r e s u l t of the modeling treatment. Based on ex-perimental analogues of overt and covert r e h e a r s a l , M c F a l l and L i l l e s a n d (1971) have s t a t e d , "covert r e h e a r s a l i s at l e a s t as e f -f e c t i v e i n r e f u s a l t r a i n i n g as overt r e h e a r s a l (p. 322)." Friedman (1971) i n an • a s s e r t i v e ' t r a i n i n g treatment study has demonstrated that the r e h e a r s a l of v e r b a l a s s e r t i v e responses need not be overt f o r be-haviour change to occur. Kazdin (1974) has demonstrated marked improvement i n b e h a v i o u r a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s as a r e s u l t of covert r e h e a r s a l . 29 It appears that there i s l i t t l e t h e o r e t i c a l or empirical basis for postulating the s u p e r i o r i t y of modeling procedures vs behaviour rehearsal procedures. No differences would be expected. Hypothesis 3, therefore, predicts no_ s i g n i f i c a n t modeling vs be-haviour rehearsal differences. In summary, the objectives of this research are threefold. The f i r s t o bjective i s to investigate the effectiveness of an asse r t i v e s k i l l s programme with a v i r t u a l l y untried inmate popu-l a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n a l contents upon ass e r t i v e expression are also investigated. Secondly, the novel use of assertive t r a i n i n g to decrease interpersonal aggression i s investigated. T h i r d l y , the e f f e c t s of modeling and behaviour rehearsal procedures i n an ass e r t i v e t r a i n i n g programme are examined. The three hypotheses are the following: .Hypothesis 1 i s that the modeling group and behaviour rehearsal group would demonstrate s i g n f i c a n t l y more assertiveness than the placebo control-group and the t e s t - r e t e s t control group on beha-v i o u r a l measures. Hypothesis 2 i s that the modeling group and the behaviour rehearsal group would demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y less aggressive-ness than the placebo control group and the t e s t - r e t e s t control group on behavioural measures. 30 Hypothesis 3 i s that the modeling group and the behaviour rehearsal group would demonstrate no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on assertiveness or aggressiveness. 31 Method Subj ects T h i r t y male p r i s o n e r s who were i n c a r c e r a t e d i n a p s y c h i a t r i c p r i s o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia volunteered as subjects i n t h i s study. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the treatment programme was p u b l i c l y posted on a l l non-psychotic wards i n the p s y c h i a t r i c p r i s o n ( f o r d e s c r i p t i o n of programme see Appendix A). T h i r t y - f o u r p r i s o n e r s out of 80 volunteered f o r the programme. Four inmates dropped out before the f i r s t s e s s i o n due to a n t i c i p a t i o n of e a r l y t r a n s f e r to another i n -s t i t u t i o n . Ten a d d i t i o n a l subjects who re q u i r e d r o u t i n e i n s t i -t u t i o n a l t e s t i n g were used as a t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l group. These subjects d i d not volunteer f o r the programme and were not expecting treatment. I t was considered e t h i c a l l y p r e f e r a b l e and more f e a s i b l e i n the treatment s e t t i n g not to wi t h h o l d treatment from subjects who volunteered f o r the programme. The inmates ranged i n age from 20 years to 49 years o l d w i t h a median age of 29 years. Their length of time i n c a r c e r a t e d at the p e n i t e n t i a r y ranged from 7 months to 15 years w i t h a median time of 2 years. Their education ranged from 4 years to 13 years w i t h a median ed u c a t i o n a l l e v e l of 9 years. The inmates were se r v i n g sentences f o r a v a r i e t y of crimes i n c l u d i n g a s s a u l t , b u r g l a r y , sex, and drug offences. 32-Dependent Measures  The Behavioural Test of Assertiveness (BTA). The BTA consisted of a set of d i r e c t i o n s and 16 audiotaped s i t u a t i o n s . The audiotaped di r e c t i o n s stated that a s e r i e s of interpersonal s i t u a t i o n s would be presented. They directed the subject to respond by looking into the camera and by using words and gestures he normally would use i n the r e a l s i t u a t i o n (rather than explaining what he might say or do). The subject was encouraged to r e l a x , to try to put himself into the s i t u a t i o n , and to give a response he f e l t was his own honest reply. If he did not f e e l he would say anything i n that s i t u a t i o n he was instructed to say "no response". An ex-ample s i t u a t i o n was then given. The d i r e c t i o n s are presented verbatim i n Appendix B . l . The audiotaped s i t u a t i o n s used i n the BTA were derived i n the following way: a) A pool of 62 sample s i t u a t i o n s were obtained i n i n t e r -views with s t a f f and inmates. These s i t u a t i o n s usually contained a dialogue between two people and were considered p o t e n t i a l l y r e l e -vant for a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . b) A l l s i t u a t i o n s were categorized as p o s i t i v e or negative s i t u a t i o n s depending on whether the s i t u a t i o n involved p o s i t i v e warmth expression or negative h o s t i l e expression. The s i t u a t i o n s were further subcategorized into i n s i d e prison versus outside p r i -son s i t u a t i o n s . The choice of category was determined by the majority of 11 independent raters ( i . e . , four s t a f f members and seven inmates). 33-c) These r a t e r s a l s o r a t e d these s i t u a t i o n s on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e on how d i f f i c u l t i t would be to express o n s e l f i n each s i t u a t i o n : . The s i t u a t i o n s that were s e l e c t e d f o r the BTA have r e l a t i v e l y high mean r a t i n g s and low standard d e v i a t i o n s which i n d i c a t e d consensual agreement on the d i f f i c u l t y of expressing one-s e l f i n that s i t u a t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n s s e l e c t e d f o r the BTA are presented i n Appendix B.2. (For d i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g s , see Appendix B.3). The Behavioural Test of Transfer (BTT). The BTT i n c l u d e d four p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s and four negative s i t u a t i o n s . These e i g h t s i t u a t i o n s were s e l e c t e d from the o r i g i n a l pool of items based on t h e i r equal d i f f i c u l t y to s i t u a t i o n s used i n the BTA ( i . e . , t o t a l scores on d i f f i c u l t y were e x a c t l y equal). Equal d i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g s were used as the s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a to ensure that d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance on the BTT could not be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s of d i f f i c u l t y between the items on these t e s t s . While the BTA t e s t e d the a c q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s to s i t u a t i o n s t r a i n e d i n treatment, the BTT t e s t e d the t r a n s f e r of these s k i l l s to.,si'tuatidns m o f addressed i n treatment. The BTT was designed to assess the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s k i l l s from the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s to new s i t u a t i o n s of equal d i f -f i c u l t y . The eight s i t u a t i o n s which comprise the BTT are presented i n Appendix B.4. Scoring. Both the BTA and the BTT were scored on the f o l l o w i n g f i v e s c a l e s : 34 1) Latency of Response: the length of time from the l a s t audio tape t e s t word (e.g., "you say ...."•) to the f i r s t word of the subject's response. Judges used a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e w i t h " s h o r t " and "long" as end p o i n t s . Latency of Response was s u b j e c t i v e l y rated as opposed to mechanically measured because only those l a t e n c i e s judged as "long" were important f o r t r a i n i n g . 2) Loudness of Voice: the loudness of a subject's response was rated on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e from " i n a p p r o p r i a t e loudness" to "appropriate loudness". 3) Eye Contact: the subject's eye contact toward the camera i n f r o n t on him was rated on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e from "not d i r e c t " to " d i r e c t " . 4) A s s e r t i v e Content: Judges rated a s s e r t i v e . c o n t e n t on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e from "low a s s e r t i v e n e s s " to "high a s s e r t i v e n e s s " using t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n A l b e r t i & Emmons (1974) as the c r i t e r i a . * The t r a i n i n g occurred over a p e r i o d of two weeks i n which r a t e r s discussed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of A s s e r t i v e Content. 5) Aggressive Content: the judges rated aggressive content on a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e from "low" to "high" using the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n A l b e r t i & Emmons (1974) as the c r i t e r i a . * I n t e r r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y . A r a t e r and a judge rated the subjects' videotaped responses to the BTA and the BTT. The term "rater", r e f e r s to the person whose scores were used f o r l a t e r a n a l y s i s and the term *See Appendix J 35 "judge" ref e r s to the person whose scores were used to assess i n t e r -r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . The rater and the judge had no knowledge of whether the inmate was a treatment or a co n t r o l subject. They were also b l i n d to whether the subjects' pre or post videotape was being rated. Rater one .and a judge rated 18 subjects' videotaped responses on Latency of Response, Loudness of Voice, Eye Contact, Assertive Content, and Aggressive Content. The t o t a l score across the 16 BTA s i t u a t i o n s f o r each subject was used to c a l c u l a t e i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . For example, the score for a subject on Latency of Response was obtained by summing across 16 s i t u a t i o n s . This sum score which was based on rater one's estimations of latency was compared to the sum score obtained from the judge's r a t i n g s . Pearson corre-l a t i o n s were then calculated between rater one and the judge's scores for the 18 subjects. Hartmann ( i n press) has noted that the sum score ( i . e . , a composite score made up of scores obtained from multiple t r i a l s ) are t y p i c a l l y more r e l i a b l e than scores derived from the observation of target behaviour i n a s i n g l e t r i a l . The Pearson correlations using the sum scores of rater one and the judge ranged from .86 to .94 on the f i v e response::components of a s s e r t i v e -ness (see Appendix C . l ) . The ratings of rater one and the judge were l a t e r checked (using eight d i f f e r e n t subjects'; videotapes) to ensure that i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y had been maintained. The Pearson correlations on the components ranged from .82 to .98. The ratings of r a t e r one were then used as the pretest scores i n l a t e r analyses. 36 This procedure of t e s t i n g i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s w i t h only some subjects reduced s t a f f time. The l a t e r checks on the maintenance of i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y guarded against " r a t e r d r i f t " ( i . e . , the r a t e r s u b t l y r e d e f i n i n g the i n d e x ) . Rater one l e f t the i n s t i t u t i o n and a second r a t e r had to be t r a i n e d . I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s were c a l c u l a t e d between the newly t r a i n e d r a t e r ( i . e . , r a t e r two), the o l d r a t e r ( i . e . , r a t e r one), and the same judge using ten s u b j e c t s ' videotapes. An ANOVA ap-p l i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y w i t h more than two r a t e r s was used (Winery, 1971, p. 286). The r e s u l t s y i e l d e d acceptable l e v e l s of i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y on four of the f i v e s c a l e s (see Appendix C l ) . The Aggressive Content s c a l e , however, y i e l d e d a considerably lower i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , p^(10)=.49. This r e s u l t i n d i c a t e s that treatment group d i f f e r e n c e s on t h i s s c a l e should be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h greater caution. ' A f u r t h e r check on the i n t e r -r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the new r a t e r ( i . e . , r a t e r two) w i t h the same judge using 15 d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s ' videotapes was made. Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n s on Latency of Response, Loudness of Voice, Eye Contact, A s s e r t i v e Content, and Aggressive Content ranged from 180 to .95. The r a t i n g s from r a t e r two were then used as the p o s t t e s t scores i n l a t e r analyses. As high c o r r e l a t i o n may not always imply high agreement between r a t e r s , concordance percentages on rater-judge agreement were a l s o c a l c u l a t e d on a l l of the above data. Concordance was defined as the r a t e r being w i t h i n 6.5 po i n t s of the judge's r a t i n g . Concordance 37 percentages ranged from 66% to 100% (see Appendix C.2). The mean d i f f e r e n c e between the r a t e r and judge was c a l c u l a t e d as another index of rater-judge agreement. These data are presented i n Appen-d i x C.3. Rater-judge d i f f e r e n c e s ranged from .40 to 9.09 w i t h the l e a s t agreement o c c u r r i n g on the p r e t e s t r a t i n g s of the Aggressive Content v a r i a b l e . As mentioned e a r l i e r the low agreement from the r e s u l t s of the Aggressive Content s c a l e make i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s from t h i s data d i f f i c u l t . Other Dependent Measures. Table 1 presents a l l the dependent mea-sures used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , when they were administered, and what area they were intended to assess. In the beha v i o u r a l response domain, a s s e r t i v e n e s s was te s t e d to 16 BTA s i t u a t i o n s presented i n the l a b o r a t o r y . To assess t r a n s f e r to untrained s i t u a t i o n s i n the l a b o r a t o r y , the BTT was used (see Methods s e c t i o n f o r development and s c o r i n g of both t e s t s ) . Latency of Response, Loudness of Voice, Eye Contact, A s s e r t i v e Content and Number of Non-Responses were assessed on both the BTA and BTT be-cause these components have been found to be c r i t i c a l i n improving the t o t a l a s s e r t i v e - s k i l l s complex ( E i s l e r , Hersen, M i l l e r , 1973; E i s l e r , Hersen, M i l l e r , and A l f o r d , 1974; Hersen and M i l l e r , 1974). To assess laboratory-to-ward g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s k i l l s , s t a f f ' u n -o b t r u s i v e l y r a ted the inmates' on-ward behaviour using the Jesness Table I Dependent Measures TEST USED DEPENDENT MEASURES PRE POST FOLLOW-UP B E H A V ' I 0 u R A L R E S P A S S E R T Behavioural Test of A s s e r t i v e n e s s (videotaped i n lab) Latency of Response Loudness of Voice Eye Contact A s s e r t i v e Content Responsiveness (Number of Non-Responses) X X X X X X X X X X i. I V E N E S S Behavioural Test of Transfer (videotaped i n lab) Latency of Response Loudness of Voice Eye Contact A s s e r t i v e Content Responsiveness (Number of Non-Responses) X X X X X r 0 N S E Jesness Behavioural C h e c k l i s t ( s t a f f o b s e rvation on ward) (Jessness, 1971) Assertiveness X X D 0 M A I N A G Behavioural Test of Assert i v e n e s s (videotaped i n lab) Aggressive Content X X S T V E N Behavioural Test of Transfer (videotaped i n lab) Aggressive Content X X E S S Jesness B e h a v i o r a l C h e c k l i s t ( s t a f f o bservation on wards) Anger C o n t r o l X X S E L F R E P 0 R T A V, R T. Rathus A s s e r t i v e Inventory (Rathus, 19 73a) Assertiveness X X A G. Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory F u l l Score Verbal A s s a u l t X X X X A N X. Temple Fear Survey (Braun and Reynolds, 1969) F u l l Score S o c i a l Competence X X X X 0 T H Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory Lying X X E R D i f f e r e n t i a l Person-a l i t y Inventory Def ens ivenes s X X S t a t i s t i c a l d e t a i l s are a v a i l a b l e i n Appendix K. 39 Behavior Checklist. The Jesness Behavior Checklist was used be-cause i t was developed for use by untrained s t a f f with i n s t i t u -t i o n a l i z e d offenders and shown to provide behaviourally r e l i a b l e data (Jesness, 1969). An Assertive Scale was r a t i o n a l l y derived from items on the Jesness Behavior Checklist which appeared to be relevant to test s i t u a t i o n s of assertiveness used i n t h i s study. This scale's construct v a l i d i t y was checked by c o r r e l a t -ing the scores on the Jesness Behavior Checklist ( i . e . , s e l f -report form) with the Rathus Assertive Inventory (r(40)=.56). The 12 items selected for this scale were also checked for i n -t e r n a l consistency (r(12)=.89, a procedure ou t l i n e d by Winer, 1971, p. 289). Aggressiveness was also assessed as a dependent v a r i a b l e i n the behavioural response domain. The Aggressive Content was rated i n the laboratory by s i t u a t i o n s presented i n the BTA and BTT. Consistent with the procedure for measuring on-ward as-sertiveness, the Jesness Behavior Checklist was used to measure on-ward aggressiveness ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , the Anger Control Scale). In the s e l f - r e p o r t domain, assertiveness, aggressiveness, and anxiety were assessed. Assertiveness was measured by having subjects f i l l out the Rathus Assertive Inventory. While several 40 a s s e r t i v e i n v e n t o r i e s are a v a i l a b l e , the Rathus A s s e r t i v e Inventory has been most widely used due to i t s acceptable r e l i a b i l i t y and i t s v a l i d i t y w i t h overt b e h a v i o u r a l r a t i n g s of a s s e r t i v e n e s s (Rathus, 1973). S e l f - r e p o r t aggressiveness was measured by the Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory. The Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory was used because i t s s c a l e s have been f a c t o r analysed i n t o a t t i t u d i n a l - m o t o r ' components of h o s t i l i t y . I t a l s o has been found to c o r r e l a t e w i t h r a t i n g s of observed h o s t i l i t y i n r o l e - p l a y i n g s i t u a t i o n s ( L e i b o w i t z , 1968; Sarason, 1961). S e l f - r e p o r t e d a n x i e t y was assessed by the Temple Fear Survey. Braun and Reynolds (1969) developed t h i s 100-item survey by compiling items from a l l p r e v i o u s l y published f e a r surveys and have adequately managed to e l i m i n a t e overlapping items betweenrthemverA reason f o r s e l e c t i n g t h i s survey over others has been that f a c t o r a n a l y s i s has y i e l d e d a s o c i a l competence s c a l e which contains items regarding a s s e r t i v e n e s s . Sample items of a l l of paper and p e n c i l t e s t s used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are pre-sented i n Table IT. Procedure A l l subjects were -.'administered the pretests::(see Table I) i n groups of f i v e . Each subjectywas given only one t e s t at a time i n random order. When the BTA was i n d i c a t e d i n the order the subject was l e d i n t o anotheroroom c o n t a i n i n g a c h a i r , a video monitor, and a microphone. The audiotaped d i r e c t i o n s and t e s t s i t u a t i o n s Table II Representative Test'Items Test Scale Representative Items Jesness Behavior Checklist Assertiveness Can express differences i n opinion, c r i t i c i s m , or complaint without antagonizing others Can take kidding or teasing without becoming upset or anxious, Anger Control Gets into p h y s i c a l f i g h t s Becomes aggravated or abusive when fru s t r a t e d or his w i l l i s opposed. Rathus Assertive Inventory Assertiveness Most people seem to be more aggressive and assaultive than I am. I am open and frank about my feelings. Buss-Durkee Ho s t i l i t y - I n v e n t o r y F u l l Score I don't seem to get what's coming to me. When I become angry, I sometimes sulk. Verbal Assault When I get mad, I say nasty things. When arguing, I tend to r a i s e my voice. Temple Fear Survey F u l l Score F a l l i n g down. Sudden noises. S o c i a l Competence Meeting someone for the f i r s t time. Being with a member of the opposite sex. 42 were administered through an intercom system from an adjoining room. Directions were repeated i f necessary, but test s i t u a t i o n s were presented only once. Upon completion of the BTA, the subject was returned to the previous testing room to complete any re-maining paper and p e n c i l tests. A l l pretests were administered i n one s i t t i n g . The above-mentioned procedure was used to administer the posttests. The BTT was administered by adding i t s eight s i t u a t i o n s to the BTA at posttesting time. The Jesness Behavior Checklist ( i . e . , observer form) used to assess observed assertiveness on the wards was f i l l e d out by s t a f f who did not know whether the inmate was an experimental or control subject. The Jesness Behavior Checklist was also administered to the s t a f f one month a f t e r the completion of the programme. Two assistants administered pre, post and follow-up measures i n order to keep the therapist f o r the t r e a t -ment groups independent from a l l t e s t i n g . A f t e r the 30 consenting subjects were pretested they were randomly assigned to the modeling, behaviour rehearsal, and placebo-control groups. The randomization was done by attaching a number to each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s name, mixing up the name/numbers, and randomly d i s t r i b u t i n g them into three p i l e s of ten. Two one-way ANOVAS were computed on age and educational l e v e l to check on the random assign-ment of subjects to treatment groups. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed among the group, i n age, or i n educational l e v e l . Since 43 p a r t i c u l a r wards run ongoing treatment programmes within;' the i n s t i -t u t i o n , an ov e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of inmates from any p a r t i c u l a r ward i n any treatment group might confound r e s u l t s . To ensure that t h i s d i d not occur, aff.urther check on the independency of wards X t r e a t -ment groups was made. Independenceebetween wards and treatment groups ."2 was preserved by randomization, _. (12)=10.91, pj > . 50. As a check on d i f f e r e n c e s among the groups on l y i n g and defen-siveness, the Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory L i e s c a l e and the D i f f e r e n t i a l P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory Defensiveness s c a l e were inconspicuously embedded i n other s c a l e s i n the b a t t e r y . A repeated measures ANOVA (Pre-Post X Groups) was performed on each s c a l e to t e s t f o r differences' between the groups, d i f f e r e n c e s be-tween the p r e t e s t i n g and posttesing,.and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . No s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t e d i n e i t h e r the l y i n g or de-fensiveness s c a l e (see Appendix D). Treatment Groups A l l groups except the t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l group met f o r 12 one-hour sessions w i t h the same t h e r a p i s t . Since the same t h e r a p i s t ran a l l the groups a check was made on t h e r a p i s t b i a s . An 11 item inventory was developed f o r t h i s study to check on whether the th e r -a p i s t was perceived as having greater enthusiasm f o r treatment groups as opposed to c o n t r o l groups ( i n t e r n a l consistency of items, _(!!)=.76). I t was administered by an a s s i s t a n t a f t e r each of the 4.4 l a s t f i v e group sessions to every group. Group members f i l l e d them out anonymously and without the therapist present. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures yielded no s i g n i f i c a n t difference across the f i v e sessions and no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among the groups (see Appendix E). Each treatment session was designed to be uniform with other sessions and each treatment group spent approximately the same amount of time per t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n as the other groups. Arssession by session synopsis of the s k i l l s programme administered to each group i s presented i n Appendix F.* Modeling Group. This group received videotape-mediated modeling i n which a s s e r t i v e responses were demonstrated i n 16 s i t u a t i o n s . Each of the 12 sessions involved 30 minutes of viewing the films and 15 minutes of discussion to i d e n t i f y important a s s e r t i v e char-a c t e r i s t i c s . The discussions focused on questions the subjects had about components of assertiveness, how assertiveness d i f f e r e d from aggressiveness, and how a s s e r t i v e behaviour could be implemented on the units. F i f t e e n male inmates from a nearby penitentiary were used as models. They were coached on the same verbal and non-verbal be-havioural components upon whicht'the subjects i n the study were l a t e r to be tested. To enhance modeling e f f e c t s inmate models were chosen because they were peers to those inmates i n treatment ( v i z . , age, status), dressed i n p r i s o n cl o t h i n g , and could demonstrate asser-*Sample videotapes a v a i l a b l e from the author. 45 tiveness i n a s t y l e not a l i e n to the inmates. The t r a i n i n g films were videotaped i n l i v i n g u n its, i n hallways, i n parole board rooms and other prison locations to increase realism and a s s o c i a t i o n with the models. The videotaped t r a i n i n g films presented to the modeling group contained several behavioural demonstrations of assertiveness to each of the 16 preselected interpersonal s i t u a t i o n s (as opposed to discussions about interpersonal approaches i n those s i t u a t i o n s ) . For example, the following i s an excerpt from modeling videotape #1 regarding the a s s e r t i v e expression of warm feeli n g s for female s t a f f : Inmate model: "You know, I've been wondering about you and I l a t e l y . Through a l l the help you've given me while I've been here, I've grown quite fond of you. I mean more that j u s t a f r i e n d . " Each t r a i n i n g f i l m focused on one t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n and pre-sented several a l t e r n a t i v e assertions i n that s i t u a t i o n . Behaviour Rehearsal Group. This group received r o l e playing, coaching, shaping, reinforcement, and p r a c t i c e f o r 30 minutes per s i t u a t i o n without the a i d of viewing modeling f i l m s . A f t e r the therapist read the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n each subject p r a c t i c e d a response and repeated i t three times. A two minute co r r e c t i v e feedback period followed and the subject was given three more opportunities to p r a c t i c e his response. F i f t e e n minutes per session was used s o l e l y for discussion to i d e n t i f y a s s e r t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The discus-sions involved questions the subjects had regarding the components 46 of assertiveness, the d i s t i n c t i o n between assertiveness and ag-gressiveness, and how ass e r t i v e behaviour could be performed on the units. Placebo Control Group. This group received a set of videotapes and viewed the same models used i n the modeling tapes discussing i s -sues that involved i n s t i t u t i o n a l l i v i n g . The discussions did not contain behavioural enactments or simulations of p a r t i c u l a r s i t -uations but focused on opinions, and debates regarding the prison system i n general. The following i s an excerpt regarding female s t a f f : Inmate model: "I mean, a f t e r a l l , you are manipulating them (s t a f f ) to get yourself out of here and they're manipulating you to keep you i n . How can a r e l a t i o n s h i p work on that kind of coun-sellor-inmate b a s i s ? " The difference between the videotapes presented to the modeling group and those presented to the placebo control group was that the modeling t r a i n i n g films contained models demonstrating s p e c i f i c a s s e rtive responses i n simulated s i t u a t i o n s . The placebo control group on the other hand viewed inmates i n general discussions about l i v i n g i n pris o n . Test-Retest Group. This group received no treatment intervention but were tested on the dependent measures at the same pre and post-testing times as other groups. They were t o l d that they were being r o u t i n e l y tested. 47 Results Separate four f a c t o r analyses of vari a n c e w i t h repeated measures ( i . e . , 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVAS) were performed on each measure of the BTA and BTT to assess treatment e f f e c t s and the e f f e c t s of s i t u a t i o n a l context. The l e v e l s of each w i t h i n f a c t o r were a) pre vs post, b) p o s i t i v e vs negative s i t u a t i o n s , and c) i n s i d e - p r i s o n vs o u t s i d e -p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n s . The l e v e l s of the between groups f a c t o r were a) modeling vs behaviour r e h e a r s a l vs placebo c o n t r o l vs t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l . To assess changes from pre to p o s t t e s t i n g on measures of the BTT (only administered a t p o s t t e s t i n g ) the p r e t e s t scores of the BTA were used i n the a n a l y s i s . The scores used i n a l l analyses were mean scores which were obtained by d i v i d i n g the su b j e c t ' s t o t a l score by the number of s i t u a t i o n s to which the subject responded. The mean score i n s t e a d of t o t a l score was used i n order to assess changes i n the subject's a s s e r t i v e n e s s f o r only those s i t u a t i o n s to which he responded ( i . e . , q u a l i t y per s i t u a t i o n ) . Since a subject could have a high mean score by responding to very few s i t u a t i o n s , the number of s i t u a t i o n s to which the subject responded were a l s o analysed ( i . e . , responsive-ness). The ANOVA summary tables performed on each b e h a v i o u r a l compon-ent of as s e r t i v e n e s s are presented i n Appendix G. For a l l the analyses, the c r i t i c a l value f o r F p r o b a b i l i t i e s was s e t at p_ < .05. To p r o t e c t against excessive e r r o r f o r the over-a l l experiment only those s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s that were r e l a t e d to 48 the hypothesis were subsequently'analysed. The four terms i n each ANOVA table i n d i c a t i n g the presence of treatment e f f e c t s were change of the groups over time ( i . e . , #9, Pre-Post X Groups) and any higher order in t e r a c t i o n s involving change of the groups over time ( i . e . , #11 Pre-Post X Positive-Negative Situations X Groups, #13 Pre-Post X Inside Prison-Outside Prison Situations X Groups, #15 Pre-Post X Positive-Negative Situations X Inside Prison-Outside Prison Situations X Groups). When any of these four hypothesis-related terms y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s the term was orthogonally p a r t i t i o n e d into d i f -ferences between treatment and control groups, differences between the modeling and behaviour rehearsal groups, and differences between the placebo control and t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l groups (Keppel, 1973, p.576). For assessments of assertiveness and aggressiveness on the p r i -son ward the scales of the Jesness Behavior Checklist were f i l l e d out by the s t a f f at the end of the programme and at follow up. In this case one way ANOVAS were performed on post scores of each scale. The ANOVA summaries f o r these analyses are presented i n Appendix H.l, H.2. Separate two factor analyses of variance with repeated measures ( i . e . , 4 X 2 ANOVAS) were also performed on each scale of the s e l f -report measures. The l e v e l s of the with i n factor were a) pre vs post and the le v e l s of the between group factors were a) modeling vs be-haviour rehearsal vs placebo control vs t e s t - r e t e s t c o n t r o l . The ANOVA summary tables f or these analyses are presented i n Appendix I. 49 Behavioural Measures  Ef f e c t s of Time Table I I I i s a summary of the s i g n i f i c a n t terms from each of the 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVAS i n Appendix G. S i g n i f i c a n t pre-post ;changes occurred on eight out of 12 of the behavioural variables (see Table I I I , row 1). Figure 1 presents the d i r e c t i o n of the pre-post changes on the four dependent variables of the BTA ( i . e . , Latency of Response, Loudness, Eye Contact, Assertive Content). Figure 1 also presents the pre-post changes on the four dependent variables to the BTT ( i . e . , Latency of Response, Eye Contact, Assertive Content, and Number of Non-Responses). Changes from pretesting to posttesting on these variables occurred i n the d i r e c t i o n that would be expected by *.: treatment; that i s , variables which would be expected to decrease as a r e s u l t of treatment, such as the Latency of Response, Number of Non-Responses decreased at posttesting and variables expected to increase as a r e s u l t of treatment such as Loudness, Eye Contact, As-s e r t i v e Content, increased at posttesting. Although these response com-ponents changed i n expected d i r e c t i o n s , improvement at posttesting was s p e c i f i c to the groups only i n the case of Assertive Content (BTA, BTT) and Latency of Rsponse (BTA). Moreover, s i g n i f i c a n t pre-post change was s p e c i f i c to treatment groups only i n the case of Assertive Content (BTA, BTT). With the exception of Assertive Content, pre-to-post improvement on a l l other components graphed i n Figure 1 did not i n t e r a c t with Table I II Summary of the s i g n i f i c a n t e ffects of each Behavioural Measure Dependent Variables Latency Loudness | Eye Contact Assertiveness Aggressiveness 1 .# of Non-Responses Latency Loudness Eye Contact Assertiveness Aggressiveness # of Non-Responses E f f e c t s Behavioural Test of Behavioural Test of Assertiveness Transfer 1 Pre-Post A A A * A A A A A A Art* rtrtrt AAA A 2 Postive-Negative Situations (P-N) •k-k AAA * Artrt AAA 3 Pre-Post X P-N * A 4 Inside Prison-Outside Prison Situations (1-0) * AA 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 * 6 P-N X 1-0 A A A A A A A A 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 AAA A 8 Groups (G) A 9 Pre-Post X G 10 P-N X G 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G © 12 1-0 X G 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G • : 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G * p_ _ .05 ** p_ _ .01 *** P. Z -005 * Hypothesis-related terms • • EYE CONTACT • • LOUDNESS • • LATENCY RESPONSIVENESS PRE POST PRE POST BTA BTT FIGURE 1 PRE-POST CHANGES.ON RESPONSE COMPONENTS — 52 treatment groups and therefore could not be explained as change induced by treatment. E f f e c t s of S i t u a t i o n a l Context P o s i t i v e vs Negative Situations: Table III ( i . e . , #2) indicated that s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of Assertive Content and Aggressive Content were e l i c i t e d i n p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s of l i k i n g and warmth expression as opposed to negative s i t u a t i o n s of h o s t i l i t y or c r i t i c i s m . In p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s responses tended to be higher i n A s s e r t i v e -ness Content, lower i n Aggressive Content, and avoided more by re-spondents ( i . e . , higher Number of Non-Responses). In terms of the Assertive Content v a r i a b l e subjects demonstrated higher l e v e l s of verbal assertiveness i n p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s . In terms of the Aggressive Content v a r i a b l e the s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower Aggressive Content i n p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s indicates that the p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s chosen for the BTA and BTT a c t u a l l y did e l i c i t p o s i t i v e - f e e l i n g as-sertions as opposed to aggressive responses. Inside-Prison vs Outside-Prison Situations: Table III ( i . e . , #4, 1-0) indicates that Assertiveness Content and Aggressive Content were also affected by i n s i d e - p r i s o n vs outside-prison s i t u a t i o n a l contexts. Inside-Prison s i t u a t i o n s involving other inmates, on-ward s t a f f , or guards e l i c i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower l e v e l s of Assertiveness Content (BTT) and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher le v e l s of Aggressiveness Content (BTA). This fi n d i n g underscores the necessity f o r teaching inmates a s s e r t i v e and non-aggressive responses to s i t u a t i o n s they encounter 53 i n a p r i s o n s e t t i n g and i s f u r t h e r defined by the i n t e r a c t i o n of s i t u a t i o n a l contexts. I n t e r a c t i o n of S i t u a t i o n a l Contexts: Table I I I ( i . e . , #6, P-N X 1-0) shows that the response components of Loudness of Voice (BTA), Eye Contact (BTA), and A s s e r t i v e Content (BTA) were a f f e c t e d by the combination of two s i t u a t i o n a l determinants. Responses to p o s i t i v e o u t s i d e - p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n s and negative-i n s i d e s i t u a t i o n s were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by more app r o p r i a t e l e v e l s of Loudness, more d i r e c t Eye Contact, and higher A s s e r t i v e Content. I t i s important to note that these response components appear to have been s i m i l a r l y a f f e c t e d by the i n t e r a c t i o n of the two s i t u a t i o n a l contexts. Figure 2 shows that increases on these beh a v i o u r a l components occurred from p o s i t i v e - i n s i d e s i t u a -t i o n s to p o s i t i v e - o u t s i d e s i t u a t i o n s . Figure 2 a l s o shows that r a t i n g s increased f o r these three components from negative-o u t s i d e s i t u a t i o n s to n e g a t i v e - i n s i d e s i t u a t i o n s . The l a t t e r f i n d i n g f u r t h e r c l a r i f i e s an e a r l i e r f i n d i n g that A s s e r t i v e Content was higher i n responses to o u t s i d e - p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n s vs i n s i d e - p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n s (Table I I I , #4, 1-0). The lower A s s e r t i v e Content i n response to i n s i d e p r i s o n contexts'-occurs more s p e c i f i c a l l y i n p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s rather than i n negative s i t u a t i o n s . 25 2.0 15 1JD .5 .0 25 20 15 10 .5-.0 25 20 15 1J0 .5 .0 25 20 15 10 .5 .0 NEGATIVE SITUATIONS V — V POSITIVE SITUATIONS 54 N P 4 LOUDNESS N< P T " EYE CONTACT -V ' A.SSEBTIVE CONTENT AGGRESSIVE CONTENT BTT INSIDE OUTSIDE FIGURE 2 INTERACTION OF SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS 55 Table 3 (#6, P-N X 1-0) shows that Aggressive Content (BTT) was a l s o s i g n f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by the i n t e r a c t i o n of s i t u a t i o n a l contexts. While Loudness of Voice, Eye Contact, and A s s e r t i v e Content were highest i n n e g a t i v e - i n s i d e p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n s (vs negative-outside) and p o s i t i v e - o u t s i d e p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n s (vs p o s i t i v e - i n s i d e ) so was Aggressive Content (see Figure 2). I n the same s i t u a t i o n a l category, subjects were most v e r b a l l y a s s e r t i v e but a l s o most v e r b a l l y aggressive. The question a r i s e s as to how d i s c r i m i n a t i n g r a t e r s and/or.-?subjects are of a s s e r t i v e n e s s being defined as non-aggressiveness. E f f e c t s of Treatment Of the s i x b e h a v i o u r a l measures only the A s s e r t i v e Content v a r i a b l e and the Responsiveness v a r i a b l e r e s u l t e d i n s i g n f i c a n t changes that could be accounted f o r by the a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s programme. No s i g n i f i c a n t treatment e f f e c t s occurred on the Latency of Response, Loudness of Voice, Eye Contact, and Aggressive Content v a r i a b l e s . Latency of Response: Figure 3 shows that a l l groups decreased the latency of t h e i r responses at p o s t t e s t i n g . Table 4 presents the orthogonal p a r t i t i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n term r e l a t e d to the change ( i . e . , Pre-Post X P-N X Groups), The r e s u l t s show-that the treatment groups d i d not decrease t h e i r Latency of Response s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the c o n t r o l groups. I n terms of treatment e f f e c t s , the length of time i t took subjects to respond to s i t u a t i o n s MODELING • • BEHAVIOUR REHEARSAL O--O PLACEBO CONTROL • • TEST RETEST CONTROL 10 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 .0 PCQ \ TRC PC \ \ \ TRC PRE POST POSITIVE PRE POST NEGATIVE LATENCY FIGURE 3 O N Table IV Latency of Response Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups Source df MS F Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups 3 .32 Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Treatment vs Cont r o l Groups 1 .20 1.69 Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Modeling vs Behaviour Rehearsal 1 .07 .59 Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Placebo Con t r o l vs Test-Retest'". 1 .69 5.85* Contr o l E r r o r (Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Subjects w i t h i n Groups) 36 .12 * E 1 - 0 5 ** p_ <_ . 01 58 went unchanged by modeling or behaviour r e h e a r s a l procedures. S i m i l a r l y no d i f f e r e n t i a l decrements on latency occurred between the modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l group. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences d i d occur between the placebo c o n t r o l group and the t e s t -r e t e s t c o n t r o l group. This d i f f e r e n c e between the c o n t r o l groups i s more pronounced i n negative s i t u a t i o n s , that i s , the placebo c o n t r o l group g r e a t l y decreased t h e i r response time to negative s i t u a t i o n s . This f i n d i n g appears to be l a r g e l y a r e s u l t of t h e i r very slow response time to the negative s i t u a t i o n s i n the pre-t e s t . Loudness of Voice: The Loudness of Voice v a r i a b l e was unaffected by treatment. .No; s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups oc-curred on the BTA and the BTT (see Appendices G.2,- G.8). Eye Contact: The Eye Contact v a r i a b l e a l s o went unmodified by t r e a t -ment as no d i f f e r e n t i a l group change over time occurred on the BTA or BTT (see Appendices G.3., G.9). A s s e r t i v e Content: The groups demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of A s s e r t i v e Content (BTA) from pre to p o s t t e s t i n g time (see Table 3, s i g n i f i c a n t . " #9Pre-Post X Groups). Table 5 presents the orthogonal p a r t i t i o n of the groups' change from pre to post-t e s t i n g . The r e s u l t s from Table 5 show that the treatment groups improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the c o n t r o l groups. In terms of the A s s e r t i v e Content v a r i a b l e Hypothesis one ( i . e . , that treatment Table V Assertive Content Orthogonal Partition of Pre-Post X Groups Source df MS F Pre-Post X Gro.ups 3 4.04 Pre-Post X Treatment vs Control Groups 1 8.27 8.40** Pre-Post X Modeling vs.;Behaviour Rehearsal 1 3.81 3.86 Pre-Post X Placebo Control vs Test-retest Control 1 .03 .03 Error (Pre-Post X Subjects within Groups) 36 .99 ;*p_ < .05 **p_ <_ .01 60 groups would demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y more assertiveness than c o n t r o l groups) "is supported. The modeling group did not improve s i g n i f i -cantly more than the behaviour rehearsal group i n d i c a t i n g that Hypo-thesis 3 ( i . e . , that no differences between the treatment groups would occur) was also supported:. While both procedures were superior i n inducing behaviour change, neither procedure was d i f f e r e n t i a l l y more e f f e c t i v e . Assertive Content i n transfer s i t u a t i o n s did not r e s u l t i n treatment e f f e c t s (see Table VI). Despite the fa c t that s i t u a t i o n a l categories and the d i f f i c u l t y of transfer s i t u a t i o n s were equated no s i g n i f i c a n t differences occurred between treatment and control :. groups. The verbal a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s acquired by the treatment sub-j e c t s i n t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s (BTA) were i n s u f f i c i e n t to generalize to transfer s i t u a t i o n s (BTT). There i s some evidence, however, that suggests that the s k i l l s demonstrated were maintained by the behaviour rehearsal group. The r e s u l t s from Table VI show that while no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences occurred on transfer s i t u a t i o n s between treatment groups and control groups, the behaviour rehearsal group did y i e l d s i g n i -f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l s of Assertive Content than the modeling group i n these s i t u a t i o n s . Inspection of Figure 4 indicates that the behaviour rehearsal group's pre-post improvement was maintained i n transfer s i t u a t i o n s but the modeling group's improvement was not MODELING • — • BEHAVIOUR REHEARSAL O--O PLACEBO CONTROL • • TEST RETEST CONTROL PRE POST PRE POST BTA BTT ASSERTIVE CONTENT FIGURE 4 Table VI A s s e r t i v e Content (Transfer) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X Groups Source df MS F Pre-Post X Groups 3 4.38 Pre-Post X Treatment vs C o n t r o l Groups 1 1.61 1.03 Pre-Post X Modeling vs Behaviour Rehearsal 1 11.08 7.10* Pre-Post X Placebo C o n t r o l vs Test-Retest C o n t r o l 1 .48 .31 E r r o r (Pre-Post X Subjects w i t h i n Groups) 36 1.56 * p_ < .05 *;* p_ < . 0 1 63 m a i n t a i n e d i n these s i t u a t i o n s . Responses from the behaviour re-hearsal subjects were rated highest i n Assertive Content to both trained and untrained s i t u a t i o n s . Assertive Content (BTT) was also influenced by positive-negative s i t u a t i o n a l determinants. Table VII presents the orthogonal p a r t i t i o n of the term r e l a t i n g to t h i s change (I.e., Pre-Post X P-N X Groups). These r e s u l t s which s.upports the r e s u l t s of Table VI ind i c a t e a) that no treatment vs control group differences occurred, and b) that behaviour rehearsal subjects demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t l y more Ass e r t i v e Content i n unfamiliar s i t u a t i o n s than the modeling subjects. Aggressive Content: Treatment did not decrease l e v e l s of Aggressive Content. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n improvement between the groups from pre to posttesting. The a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s did not produce decreases i n Aggressive Content and also did not produce increases on this component. Hypothesis 2 ( i . e . , that the modeling group and the behaviour rehearsal group would demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s aggressiveness than the co n t r o l groups on beha-v i o u r a l measures) was not supported. Responsiveness (Number of Non-Responses): Groups did demonstrate d i f f e r e n t i a l improvement from pre to posttesting on the Responsiveness v a r i a b l e . Table VIII presents the orthogonal p a r t i t i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n t Pre-Post X Groups i n t e r a c t i o n term. The r e s u l t s show that treatment Table VII A s s e r t i v e Content (Transfer) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups Source df MS F Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups 3 1.21 Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Treatments vs C o n t r o l Groups 1 .27 .65 . : Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Modeling vs Behaviour Rehearsal 1 3.33 8.06** Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Placebo C o n t r o l vs Test-Retest 1 .04 .09 A C o n t r o l E r r o r (Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Subjects w i t h i n Groups) 36 .41 * p_ 1 .05 ** £ ± .01 ON Table V I I I Responsiveness (Number of Non-Responses) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X Groups Source df MS F Pre-Post X Groups 3 2.72 Pre-Post X Treatment vs C o n t r o l Groups 1 4.51 5.15* Pre-Post X Modeling vs Behaviour Rehearsal 1 2.26 2.58 Pre-Post X Placebo C o n t r o l vs Test-Retest Control 1 1.41 1.61 E r r o r (Pre-Post X Subjects w i t h i n Groups) 36 .88 * p_ < .05 ** p_ < .01 66 groups responded to a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t number of test s i t u a -tions than the control groups. The number of non-responses decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r treatment groups as opposed to control groups ( i . e . , treatment subjects responded to more s i t u a t i o n s ) . Hypothesis 1 therefore i s supported i n terms of t h i s v a r i a b l e . Also, no differences were found between modeling and behaviour rehearsal treatments i n d i -cating support f o r Hypothesis 3. Table IX presents the analysis of an-other s i g n i f i c a n t hypothesis re l a t e d term (i.e.., #11 .Pre-Post X P-N X Groups) which indicates that the groups' improvement over time i s further determined by p o s i t i v e vs negative s i t u a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s of Table IX in d i c a t e that no treatment e f f e c t s occurred. I t can be noted from Figure 5 however, that i n p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s both t r e a t -ment groups and the t e s t - r e t e s t control subjects improved, ( i . e . , decreased the number of non-responses at po s t t e s t i n g ) , while the p l a -cebo control subjects became les s responsive ( i . e . , increased the number of non-responses at po s t t e s t i n g ) . In negative s i t u a t i o n s both treatment groups show improvement, and both co n t r o l groups become s l i g h t l y less responsive. In summary, the s i g n i f i c a n t improvement of the treatment groups over the control groups ( i n Table VIII) needs to be q u a l i f i e d i n l i g h t of the positive-negative s i t u a t i o n a l determinants (Table IX). Behavioural Measures (On Ward Assessment) Table X summarizes the s i g n i f i c a n t terms from each ANOVA performed M O D E L I N G B E H A V I O U R R E H E A R S A L O - — O P L A C E B O C O N T R O L O • T E S T R E T E S T C O N T R O L P R E P O S T P O S I T I V E P C Q _ M V — B R T R C P R E N E R E S P O N S I V E N E S S F I G U R E 5 Table IX Responsiveness (Number of Non-Responses) Orthogonal P a r t i t i o n of Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups Source df MS F Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Groups 3 1. 49  Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e " S i t u a t i o n s X Treatment vs C o n t r o l 1 1.25 2.50 Groups Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e ^ N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Modeling vs 1 1.41 2.80 Behaviour Rehearsal Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Placebo Co n t r o l 11 1.81 3.61 vs Test-Retest C o n t r o l E r r o r (Pre-Post X P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s X Subjects 36 .50 w i t h i n Groups) * p_ < .05 ** p_ < .01 Table X' Summary of the S i g n i f i c a n t E f f e c t s of i n vivo Behavioural and Self-Report Scales ! Assertiveness [Anger Control j (Jesness, post) Assertive Inventory (Rathus) H o s t i l i t y jVerbal Inventory jAssault j (Buss-Durkee) Fear ' S o c i a l Survey 'Competence j (Temple) As s e r t i v e - !][ Anger ness j Control j (Jesness j follow-up Pre-Post : | * i - i i Groups j j Pre-Post X Groups i j 1 *p_ _.05 SO. 70 performed ( i n Appendices H, and I) on the i n vivo behavioural scales. The Jesness Behavior Checklist scales ( i . e . , Assertiveness scale and Anger Control scale) were used to assess i n vivo changes of observed assertiveness and aggressiveness. Results from separate one way ANOVAS showed no s i g n i f i c a n t posttest differences among the groups. There was no i n d i c a t i o n from these measures that treatment groups generalized the s k i l l s acquired i n the laboratory on to the pr i s o n wards. Self-Report Measures Separate 4 X 2 ANOVAS on the s e l f - r e p o r t scales yielded no s i g n i -f i c a n t group differences. This indicated that treatment subjects did not s e l f - r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more change than the control sub-j e c t s on anxiety, assertiveness, or aggressiveness. Follow-up Measures The Jesness Behavior Checklist scales ( i . e . , Assertiveness and Anger Control) were administered to the s t a f f one month a f t e r the program. Separate ANOVAS on each scale resulted i n no s i g n i f i -cant differences among the groups. This r e s u l t would be expected since no s i g n i f i c a n t group differences on ward transfer was found to occur at posttesting. 71 Discussion The re s u l t s of t h i s study y i e l d f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g to a) the e f f e c t s of time, b) the e f f e c t s of s i t u a t i o n a l context, and c) the e f f e c t s of treatment. F i r s t l y , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e that many of the behavioural components of assertiveness improved over time. S i g n i f i c a n t improvement at posttesting could not, however, be accounted for by treatment. Both treatment and control groups demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t improvement on Latency of Response, Loud-ness of Voice, Eye Contact, Responsiveness (BTA), with no d i f f e r e n t i a l improvement of the treatment groups. Secondly, various s i t u a t i o n a l contexts also a f f e c t e d l e v e l s of assertiveness. Assertive responses were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t depending on the s o c i a l - i n t e r p e r s o n a l context of the s i t u a t i o n . T h i r d l y , the e f f e c t s of treatment were most evident on verbal components rather than non-verbal components of the a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s complex. The treatment groups demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l s of verbal assertiveness ( i . e . , Assertive Content) and responsiveness than the co n t r o l groups but did not de-monstrate superior non-verbal assertiveness ( i . e . , latency of response, appropriate loudness, d i r e c t eye contact). The modification of verbal s k i l l s (as demonstrated on s i t u a t i o n a l tests i n the labor-atory) did not transfer to untrained s i t u a t i o n s or onto the wards. Levels of verbal aggressiveness did not appear to be reduced by treatment. Due to the r e l a t i v e low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of 72 ratings on Aggressive Content, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine the e f f e c t of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g on this v a r i a b l e . Furthermore, t r e a t -ment did not produce changes on s e l f - r e p o r t e d assertiveness, anxiety, or aggressiveness. Since treatment only affected verbal a s s e r t i v e -ness and responsiveness, the pre-post changes on other non-verbal components must be explained by other f a c t o r s . The question a r i s e s as to why both treatment and control groups demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t improvement on some components ( i . e . , Lat-ency of Response, Loudness of Voice, Eye Contact, and Responsiveness (BTT)). While subjects might tend to do better simply by taking the same s i t u a t i o n a l tests for the second time (at p o s t t e s t i n g ) , task f a m i l i a r i t y i s not a p l a u s i b l e explanation for the s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s of change on a l l these components. A more p l a u s i b l e explan-a t i o n of these data r e l a t e to the e f f e c t s of h i s t o r y and i n general, the problems of doing research i n closed treatment i n s t i t u t i o n s . During the course of the a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g programme, treatment provided by the i n s t i t u t i o n was ongoing; movement to other u n i t s , parole board meetings, and other events i n the treatment environment occurred which may have created greater impact on the subjects than a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . The subjects' awareness that improvement may shorten i n c a r c e r a t i o n cannot be discounted as an explanation for the co n t r o l group's improvement. Inmate subjects "faking bad" at pretests and "faking good" at posttests for the purposes of early release pose 73 d i f f i c u l t i e s for researchers i n prison s e t t i n g s . For example, the laboratory research on a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g performed with u n i v e r s i t y students assumes that compliance to the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the experiment are equal for c o n t r o l group subjects at pre and post-t e s t i n g and i s increased at posttesting f o r treatment subjects. For i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d inmates, however, compliance to the demand charact-e r i s t i c s cannot be expected to remain constant from pre to post-t e s t i n g i f t h e i r release i s contingent upon improved posttest scores. Treatment programmes conducted i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l settings must there-fore demonstrate that treatment subjects improve over and above the "improved" control subjects. The f a c t that treatment e f f e c t s must be demonstrated against s i g n i f i c a n t pre-post change of untreated control groups, does not pose experimental d i f f i c u l t i e s i n evaluating t r e a t -ment. As long as i t can be assumed that i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d treatment subjects p a r t i c i p a t e i n the same "impression management" (Braginsky i & Braginsky, 1969) i n order to be released, and that dependent mea-sures have a s u f f i c i e n t range to eliminate c e i l i n g e f f e c t s , then uniform faking should not influence the evaluation of treatment ef-f e c t s . To ensure that no d i f f e r e n t i a l l y i n g or defensiveness oc-curred among the groups i n t h i s study, a l i e scale ( i . e . , MMPI) and a defensiveness scale (I.e., D i f f e r e n t i a l Personality Inventory) were administered. The r e s u l t s showed no difference among the groups on these measures. This f i n d i n g suggests that i f subjects are faking 74 responses that the e f f e c t s are not systematic among the groups. Uniform faking among the groups however:, i s s t i l l p o s s i b l e and h i s t o r i c a l e f f e c t s may explain the marked improvement of both treated and untreated subjects. Another research consideration unique to inve s t i g a t i o n s i n closed r e s i d e n t i a l settings i s that treatment subjects l i v e with the control subjects. The treatment subjects i n th i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n were encouraged to p r a c t i c e assertions on the units with fellow inmates. Discussion of a s s e r t i v e strategies learned i n treatment and p r a c t i c i n g assertions together may have produced i n vivo impact on the control subjects. Treatment "overflow" or the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of treatment may have impinged on the control subjects. I t should be noted that t h i s d i f f i c u l t y was compounded by ensuring that treatment subjects did not come from one unit and con t r o l subjects from another unit. I f d i f f e r e n t groups i n the as s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g project had come from i n -dependent treatment u n i t s , a hopeless confound with ongoing therapy on that p a r t i c u l a r treatment unit would have been produced. The random assignment of subjects into a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g groups eliminated this d i f f i c u l t y but also Increased the p r o b a b i l i t y that treatment and control group subjects resided i n the same l i v i n g u n i t , therby i n -creasing i n d i r e c t treatment impact on control subjects. These i n -d i r e c t e f f e c t s of treatment on the control subjects may have c o n t r i -buted to the control subjects' marked improvement from pre to postte s t i n g . 75 The r e s u l t s also i n d i c a t e that a s s e r t i v e communication was affected by s i t u a t i o n a l context. In s i t u a t i o n s requiring a s s e r t i v e -ness, the subjects' verbal a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s were influenced by the s o c i a l context. The t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s were categorized as p o s i t i v e or negative s i t u a t i o n s according to Wolpe's (1969) d i f f e r e n -t i a t i o n of p o s i t i v e commendatory assertions ( i . e . , expressions of af-f e c t i o n , empathy, admiration, and appreciation) and negative opposi-t i o n a l assertions ( i . e . , expressions of denied r i g h t s , personal con-front a t i o n s , e t c . ) . The si t u a t i o n s were also categorized as ins i d e prison ( i . e . , interpersonal exchanges with s t a f f , inmates, guards) vs outside prison ( i . e . , interpersonal exchanges with storekeepers, acquaintances, co-workers, e t c . ) . The r e s u l t s showed that s i g n i f i -cantly higher l e v e l s of Assertive Content were demonstrated i n p o s i t i v e s i t u a t i o n s . While inmates were not pre-selected on the basis of problems with h o s t i l i t y or explosive behaviour, t h e i r verbal a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d e f i c i e n t i n confrontative, h o s t i l i t y - p r o v o k i n g s i t u a t i o n s than i n p o s i t i v e commenda-tory situations. Quite expectedly, Aggressive Content was also s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n negative s i t u a t i o n s . In terms of in s i d e - p r i s o n vs outside-p r i s o n s i t u a t i o n a l contexts,•the r e s u l t s showed that the subject's ver-b a l assertive s k i l l s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower i n si t u a t i o n s regarding other inmates and guards (with" s i g n i f i c a n t l y higheriaggressiveness). The examination of these s o c i a l - i n t e r p e r s o n a l contexts on Assertive 76 Content and Aggressive Content suggests that a subject may e x h i b i t s i t u a t i o n a l l y - s p e c i f i c s k i l l d e f i c i t s i n some s i t u a t i o n s but not i n others. The d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between the expression of anger vs v e r b a l i z e d angry ..attacks appeared to be more d i f f i c u l t f o r sub-j e c t s to make i n s i t u a t i o n s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c o n f r o n t a t i v e p r i -son contexts. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f i n d i n g s of E i s l e r , Hersen, M i l l e r , and Blanchard (1975), who con-cluded t h a t , "an i n d i v i d u a l who i s a s s e r t i v e i n one i n t e r p e r s o n a l context may not be a s s e r t i v e i n a d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p e r s o n a l environ-ment, "(p.339). The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that components of the as-s e r t i v e - s k i l l s complex were a f f e c t e d by various environmental stimulus c o n d i t i o n s . In t h i s r e s p e c t , M i s c h e l (.1968) has argued that While t r a i t and s t a t e t h e o r i e s have searched f o r broad co n s i s t e n t d i s p o s i t i o n s , a considerable amount of ex-perimental research has focused i n s t e a d on the deter-minants of changes i n behaviour and on stimulus condi-t i o n s that seem to c o n t r o l these a l t e r a t i o n s , (p.10) In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the r o l e of s i t u a t i o n a l determinants upon ass e r t i v e n e s s was f u r t h e r defined by i n t e r a c t i o n s between the s i t u a -t i o n a l determinants ( i . e . , p o s i t i v e - n e g a t i v e X i n s i d e vs outside p r i -son s i t u a t i o n s ) . Responses to s i t u a t i o n s of p o s i t i v e expressions of warmth and concern to persons o u t s i d e the p r i s o n s e t t i n g ( i . e . , PO) e l i c i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l s of appropriate loudness, 77 more d i r e c t eye contact, and a s s e r t i v e content. A l s o , higher o v e r a l l a s s e r t i v e n e s s on these three components were e l i c i t e d i n negative s i t -uations of people i n v o l v e d i n the p r i s o n ( i . e . , N I ) . The r e c o g n i t i o n that one's v e r b a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s depends on the s o c i a l context i s c l i n i c a l l y r e l e v a n t . Since v e r b a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s can not be viewed as a t r a n s - s i t u a t i o n a l l y emitted behaviour, a s s e r t i v e n e s s - s k i l l s pro-grammes are w e l l advised to examine the environmental context i n which a s s e r t i v e responses are being t r a i n e d . The c r i t i c a l s o c i a l - i n t e r p e r -sonal stimulus c o n d i t i o n s i n f l u e n c i n g the c l i e n t ' s d e f i c i t s ought to be i d e n t i f i e d and addresssed i n treatment. P a r t i c u l a r care ought to be given to e s t a b l i s h i n g r e l e v a n t s i t u a t i o n a l contents f o r t r a i n i n g . In t h i s respect Goldsmith and M c F a l l (1975) have pointed out that the " e f f i c a c y of the t r a i n i n g can never be assessed apart from the e v a l u a t i o n of the programme's content" (p.52). I f a s s e r t i v e n e s s de-pends on what you say, to who, i n what s i t u a t i o n , and programmes t r a i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s without regard f o r problematic s i t u a t i o n a l de-terminants, then the t r a i n i n g w i l l not o f f e r r e l e v a n t i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s . Toward t h i s end t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has presented a method f o r e m p i r i c a l l y developing inmate-relevant problem s i t u a t i o n s . In terms of treatment e f f e c t s , the A s s e r t i v e Content and Respon-siveness measures r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y more improvement among the treatment groups than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . Latency of Response, Loudness of Voice, and Eye Contact were not b e n e f i c i a l l y a f f e c t e d by 78 treatment. E i s l e r et a l . (1973) also resported d i f f e r e n t i a l respon-siveness of s k i l l s components to treatment and have pointed out that each s k i l l component may require i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n throughout treatment. It should be noted that the components of the a s s e r t i v e s k i l l complex have been selected on an a p r i o r i , c l i n i c a l basis. The d i f f e r e n t progressive courses that each s k i l l component may take as a r e s u l t of treatment becomes less s u r p r i s i n g . While the compo-nents have been r a t i o n a l l y derived and bear some r e l a t i o n s h i p to behaviour judged as o v e r a l l assertive, l i t t l e empirical evidence has c l a r i f i e d t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the a s s e r t i v e s k i l l complex. The functional r o l e that each response component plays ( i . e . , r e l a t i o n -ship between verbal and non-verbal s k i l l components, the s a l i e n t s k i l l components for the communication of d i f f e r e n t emotions, etc.) i s s t i l l l a r g e l y unknown and awaits further reserach. Further i n -v e s t i g a t i o n i s also necessary to c l a r i f y the r o l e of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s responsiveness i n general to a s s e r t i v e interchanges. To explore the r o l e of responsiveness i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the number of non-responses made by each group was analysed. I f assertiveness i s defined as the expression of one's rights and f e e l i n g s i n d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s , then "no response" or pervasive unresponsive-ness must be.:.considered as low assertion. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study indicated that treatment groups had responded s i g n i f i c a n t l y more ( i . e . , s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower number of non-responses) to test 79 s i t u a t i o n s than d i d c o n t r o l groups. This f i n d i n g suggests that as-s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g techniques increased one's responsiveness to s i t u a -t i o n s . However, i t i s not j u s t important that a subject has learned to speak up more, but that he a l s o learned to do so a s s e r t i v e l y . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n the context of a p r i s o n s e t t i n g where i t i s e s s e n t i a l that a treatment programme demonstrate that i t has helped inmates do more than j u s t speak up. Increasing responsiveness without i n c r e a s i n g a s s e r t i v e n e s s might lead to adverse consequences i n such a s e t t i n g . In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n the treatment subjects improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the A s s e r t i v e Content measure i n d i c a t i n g that v e r b a l a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s were acquired as w e l l as a general respon-siveness to more s i t u a t i o n s . Hypothesis one ( i . e . , that modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l groups would demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y more as-s e r t i v e n e s s than c o n t r o l groups) was supported on A s s e r t i v e Content and Responsiveness v a r i a b l e s but not on other b e h a v i o u r a l measures. In regard to Latency of Response, the l e v e l s of response quickness appeared to be considerably low at the p r e t e s t l e v e l and t h e r e f o r e l e s s s e n s i t i v e to s i g n i f i c a n t reductions by treatment. The f i n d i n g of latency's i n s e n s i t i v i t y to treatment i s not uncommon i n other s t u d i e s using s i m i l a r a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g procedures ( E i s l e r , Hersen, and M i l l e r , 1973). Loudness of Voice and Eye Contact a l s o proved r e f r a c -tory to treatment and t h i s f i n d i n g i s not g e n e r a l l y found i n other s t u d i e s which reported m o d i f i c a t i o n of these components ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r , 80 Hersen, and A l f o r d , 1974; E i s l e r , M i l l e r , and Hersen, 1973). I t does appear that non-verbal or s u b t l e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a s s e r t i v e communication r e q u i r e more c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n than other more s a l i e n t or v e r b a l components of the s k i l l s complex. M c F a l l and Marston (1970) have suggested s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n i s necessary to modify non-verbal cues of a model. E i s l e r , Hersen, and Agras (1973) suggest a method f o r the c o n t r o l l e d o b servation of non-verbal I n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviour through videotape feedback as an e f f e c t i v e approach to modify these s k i l l components. In ge n e r a l , the treatment s t r a t e g y of t a r g e t i n g s p e c i f i c components f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n appears to be an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y , however, the f i n d i n g s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n suggest that considerable i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n may be r e q u i r e d f o r non-verbal s k i l l components. In terms of hypothesis two ( i . e . , treatment groups would de-monstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s aggression than c o n t r o l groups) no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s i n v e r b a l aggression r e s u l t e d from the l a b o r a t o r y b e h a v i o u r a l measure ( i . e . , Aggressive Content), the i n v i v o behavioural measure ( i . e . , Jesness Behavior C h e c k l i s t , Anger C o n t r o l ) , or the s e l f - r e p o r t measure ( i . e . , Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory, f u l l s c o r e ) . These f i n d i n g s are not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h other i n v e s t i g a t i o n s (Rimm, Hunziker, & Keyson, 1971; MacPherson, 1972; Scopetta, 1972; Wallace et a l . , 1973; Rimm, H i l l , Brown, & S t u a r t , 1974; Foy et a l . , 1975). This i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' s contrary 81 f i n d i n g s may have r e s u l t e d from the low occurrence of manifested aggression. While the low occurrence of v e r b a l aggression must be i n t e r p r e t e d c a u t i o u s l y i n l i g h t of the low i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the Aggressive Content s c a l e , i t d i d appear that subjects were r e l u c t a n t to make aggressive responses on videotape at times (ex-cerpt from h o s t i l e s i t u a t i o n j " I would normally say something e l s e , but I sure don't want that on tap e ! " ) . 'It i s reasonable to assume that inmate subjects would not want t h e i r v e r b a l l y a s s e r t i v e or a brasive statements videotaped. Since the occurrence of ver -b a l aggression was i n f r e q u e n t , treatment e f f e c t s would have to be extremely potent to further:reduce the inc i d e n c e of t h i s behaviour. The low occurrence of v e r b a l aggressiveness may i n d i c a t e that sub-j e c t s can e x e r c i s e s u f f i c i e n t impulse c o n t r o l i n a l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a -t i o n . There i s some e m p i r i c a l support that people w i l l r e a c t to r o l e - p l a y i n g s i t u a t i o n s as they do i n r e a l l i f e , (Borgatta, 1951; Go l d s t e i n et a l . , 1973) however, the experimental s e t t i n g may have provided the s u f f i c i e n t c o n s t r a i n t f o r subjects to respond d i f f e r e n t l y to the h o s t i l i t y - p r o v o k i n g l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n s than to s i m i l a r r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . N a t u r a l i s t i c observations of Anger C o n t r o l made by s t a f f a l s o d i d not i n d i c a t e changes i n v e r b a l aggressiveness on the wards. The d i r e consequences f o r e x h i b i t i n g aggression on the u n i t s as w e l l as on videotaped l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s may e x p l a i n the low l e v e l s of aggressive content assessed i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 82 The p o t e n t i a l of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g to increase an i n d i v i d u a l ' s verbal assertiveness and inadvertently increase an i n d i v i d u a l ' s ver-b a l aggressiveness has been generally overlooked i n the a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e . I t would be important p a r t i c u l a r l y with p r i s o n inmates to ascertain that assertiveness increased without correspond-ing increments i n verbal aggressiveness. While the treatments im-plemented i n t h i s study did not appear to reduce verbal aggression, i t i s noteworthy that no increases were produced as a r e s u l t of train4 ing. These findings, however, must be cautiously interpreted i n l i g h t of the considerable d i f f i c u l t y i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the occurrence of aggression from the low i n t e r r e l l a b i l i t y of the aggressive content scale ( i . e . , r'^(10) = . 49). In terms of hypothesis 3.(i.e., that modeling and behaviour rehearsal would not d i f f e r i n effectiveness to increase assertiveness • and-=decrease aggressiveness), the r e s u l t s showed no d i f f e r e n t i a l s u p e r i o r i t y of one technique over the other. Both treatment pro-cedures e f f e c t i v e l y modified Assertive Content (BTA) and Responsive-ness (BTA), and no differences between the treatments occurred. Hypothesis 3 was therefore supported. Since the treatments were equated i n terms of p o t e n t i a l modeling e f f e c t s , d i s i n h i b i t o r y effects, and informational value, t h e i r equal ef f e c t upon a s s e r t i v e s k i l l components might have been expected. The fin d i n g of this study regarding no s i g n i f i c a n t modeling vs behaviour r e -hearsal e f f e c t s was consistent with the r e s u l t s reported by Friedman 83 (1971) and M c F a l l and Twentymen (1973) and i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the.' : r e s u l t s of Sarason (1968) and E i s l e r , Hersen, and M i l l e r (1973). The d i f f e r e n c e between the f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study and the works of Sarson (1968) and E i s l e r et a l . , (1973) may be a r e s u l t of procedural d i f f e r e n c e s i n the treatments. For example, Sarason (1968) concluded that modeling was s u p e r i o r to r o l e p l a y i n g , how-ever, the treatment i n v o l v e d l i v e models who spent time develop-i n g rapport and i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d delinquents. E i s l e r et a l . , (1973) concluded that u n a s s e r t i v e p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s who merely p r a c t i c e responses (from t h e i r d e f i c i e n t r e p e r t o i r e s ) without the b e n e f i t of viewing models d i d not improve i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s . The contrary r e s u l t s i n t h i s study ( i . e . , no d i f f e r e n c e s between these procedures) may be a r e s u l t of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the behaviour r e h e a r s a l treatments. The p r a c t i c e c o n t r o l subjects i n the E i s l e r et a l . , (.1973) work were only asked to repeat responses to t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . The be-haviour r e h e a r s a l subjects i n t h i s study were asked to respond to the t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s , were given c o r r e c t i v e feedback, and allowed to re-shape and repeat t h e i r new responses. C o r r e c t i v e feedback and a d d i t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s to strengthen the s o c i a l responses may have been the important d i f f e r e n c e i n t h i s study's behaviour r e h e a r s a l group. Subjects who are given p r a c t i c e a f t e r c o r r e c t i v e feedback rehearse novel a s s e r t i v e responses as opposed to strengthening o l d maladaptive responses. 84 The contradiction i n the l i t e r a t u r e may also be a function of the d i f f e r e n t subject populations. For example, both Sarason (1968) and E i s l e r et a l . , (1973) treated i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d sub-j e c t s . Their conclusions that modeling i s superior may derive from the fa c t that t h e i r subjects required modeling treatments to provide exposure to a l t e r n a t i v e a s s e r t i v e responses. Behaviour rehearsal without shaping, feedback, or exposure to models would not be expected to extend t h e i r depleted behavioural r e p e r t o i r e s . On the other hand, McFall and Twentymen (1973) treated college students who are presumably functioning at a."higher l e v e l of s o c i a l -interpersonal s k i l l s than i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d patients. The r e s u l t s which showed that modeling contributed n e g l i g i b l y to behaviour rehearsal might be expected for t h i s n o n - c l i n i c a l population since modeling novel behaviours may not be necessary as rehearsing form-e r l y learned, anxiety-disrupted behaviours. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these data await further research on the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of s k i l l t r a i n i n g procedures vs anxiety-reduction procedures and the d i f f e r e n t i a l responsiveness of p a r t i c u l a r response components to p a r t i c u l a r treatment procedures. While the behaviour rehearsal subjects did not demonstrate more assertiveness than modeling subjects at l e v e l s of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , they did perform at consistently higher l e v e l s of assertiveness. I t was also apparent that the modeling subjects' 85 s k i l l s did not transfer to new s i t u a t i o n s and the behavioural rehearsal subjects' s k i l l s were maintained. To speculate, the advantages of behaviour rehearsal over modeling may be a function of the type of modeling received i n each group. The l i v e modeling inadvertently provided i n the behaviour rehearsal group when members r o l e played responses may have contributed to the behaviour rehearsal subjects' superior improvement. Meichenbaum (1971) has argued that l i v e cop-ing models/can be more e f f e c t i v e than mastery models because they i d e n t i f y coping strategies and progressively demonstrate higher l e v e l s of the desired behaviour. This might also increase observer i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the model. The behaviour rehearsal subjects who served as l i v e models for each other were s i m i l a r to coping models. They i n i t i a l l y r o l e played responses at low l e v e l s of a s s e r t i v e -ness, i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i t s through group c o r r e c t i v e feedback, and r o l e played improved responses. Greater model i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was possible by the l i v e modeling i n the behaviour rehearsal group because fellow inmate residents e s s e n t i a l l y served as the l i v e models. Also, since ten members were i n the group, many more a l t e r n a t i v e a s s e r t i v e responses were modeled i n the behaviour rehearsal group than were presented on f i l m to the modeling group. The advantages of the l i v e modeling ( i n the behav'io u r 86 r e h e a r s a l group) vs symbolic modeling awaits f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n which the v a r i a n t forms of modeling could be se-p a r a t e l y evaluated. In'.this study i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess what components of the behaviour r e h e a r s a l group produced 'some s u p e r i o r performance s i n c e r o l e p l a y i n g and l i v e modeling were combined. The data from the BR group i n d i c a t e d that l i v e modeling plus r o l e p l a y i n g appears to be an e f f e c t i v e treatment combination. Some evidence already e x i s t s suggesting that l i v e modeling plus behaviour r e -h e a r s a l i s a h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e treatment combination f o r modifying a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s ' d e f i c i t s (Sarason, 1968; Friedman, 1971; Gutride, et a l . , 1973; G a l a s s i , G a l a s s i , & L i t z , 1974). The t h e o r e t i c a l mechanisms r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these e f f e c t i v e treatment combinations i however, are s t i l l l a r g e l y undetermined. Outcome analyses on modeling and behaviour r e h e a r s a l have i n d i c a t e d that these procedures used alone are e f f e c t i v e f o r use i n as-s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . Their combination i s s u f f i c i e n t l y promising to warrant f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s to explore the modes of i n f l u e n c e by which these combined procedures achieve t h e i r success. 87 The transfer of s k i l l s to untrained s i t u a t i o n s i n the laboratory and i n the n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t t i n g was not found i n t h i s experiment. Only Assertive Content approached s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l group dif- 1 ferences on t r a n s f e r tasks. A l l other transfer measures showed no s i g n f i c a n t group differences. The lack of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to untrained s i t u a t i o n s may be a function of the lack of s k i l l s obtained to the laboratory t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . T h e lack of s i g n f i c i a n t group differences on Latency of Response, Loudness of Voice, and Eye Contact to transfer s i t u a t i o n s i s a d i r e c t function of the weak or n e g l i g i b l e modification of these s k i l l components to the o r i g i n i a l t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . In regard to i n vivo g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s k i l l s , no s i g n i f i c a n t group differences occurred on s t a f f c h e c k l i s t s rated at termination and one month a f t e r treatment. The lack of on ward transfer might have been expected as a r e s u l t of the increased d i f f i c u l t y that i n -mates had i n responding to i n s i d e prison s i t u a t i o n s as opposed to outside prison s i t u a t i o n s . One p o s s i b l e explanation f o r the lack of ^transfer at termination and follow-up i s that the measure used may have been inadequate to assess on ward assertiveness. The i n vivo behavioural measure of assertiveness ( i . e . , Jesness Behavior Checklist, Assertiveness) and the in-laboratory behavioural measure of verbal assertiveness ( i . e . , A s s e r t i v e Content) i n f a c t , had very l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( i . e . , 2,(40) = .02). 88 Although non-laboratory measures may have been inadequate to assess i n v i v o a s s e r t i v e n e s s , there e x i s t s the r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y that a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s f a i l e d to g e n e r a l i z e to the ward s e t t i n g s . The f a c t that r o l e - p i a y i n g on l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s r e q u i r e l e s s r i s k than enacting a s s e r t i v e n e s s on a p r i s o n ward cannot be overlooked. S k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n as demonstrated i n a l a b o r a t o r y i s d i s t i n c t from s k i l l s performance i n the r e a l l i f e s e t t i n g . The d i s t i n c t i o n between a c q u i s i t i o n and performance as Bandura (1969) p o i n t s out i s i n p a r t a f u n c t i o n of the r e i n f o r c i n g consequences. He s t a t e s , However, r e s u l t s of an experiment bearing on the learning-performance d i s t i n c t i o n lend support to the theory that the a c q u i s i t i o n of matching responses r e s u l t s p r i m a r i l y from stimulus c o n t i g u i t y and a s s o c i a t e d symbolic processes, whereas the perform-: arice of o b s e r v a t i o n a l l y - l e a r n e d responses w i l l depend to a great extent upon the nature of r e i n f o r c i n g consequences to the model and to the observer, (p.128) Even though changes i n the d i r e c t i o n of a s s e r t i v e n e s s would be b e n e f i c i a l , any change i n an i n d i v i d u a l ' s behaviour whose p r i s o n environment i s designed to r e i n f o r c e p a s s i v i t y and s i l e n c e may run the r i s k of adverse consequences. The r i s k of punishment i n an unreceptive environment may.. need to be taken more f u l l y i n t o account by behaviour change pro-grammes. In v i v o change should be programmed to maximize p o s i t i v e outcome and;,the individual'.si,environmental change should be co-o p e r a t i v e l y programmed i f p o s s i b l e . The meager g e n e r a l i z a t i o n 89 e f f e c t s found i n .the; a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e (Kazdin, 1974; Young et a l . , 1973; M c F a l l et a l . , 1970) would s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e that b r i e f analogue treatments may need to more c a r e f u l l y programme t r a n s f e r of s k i l l s i n t o the r e a l l i f e s e t t i n g . The v i r t u a l lack': of t r a n s f e r and i n vivo g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s k i l l s i n a s s e r t i v e t r a i n -i n g s t u d i e s even when g e n e r a l i z a t i o n tasks c l o s e l y resemble t r a i n ^ ing tasks suggest that planned i n v i v o change has been inadequately addressed i n much of the l i t e r a t u r e . In the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n the weak a c q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s i n the l a b o r a t o r y , the inadequacy• of non-laboratory measures to assess g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t s , and the l a c k of planned t r a n s f e r to maximize p o s i t i v e outcomes may a l l account f o r the l a c k of evidence regarding observed a s s e r t i v e n e s s on the wards. The present i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h e r e f o r e provides l i t t l e evidence f o r the t r a n s f e r of a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s o u t s i d e the l a b o r a t o r y . The r e s u l t s of the s e l f - r e p o r t measures used i n t h i s inves--t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s i n a s s e r t i v e -ness, aggressiveness, or a n x i e t y . The d i s p a r i t y between s i g n i f i -cant group d i f f e r e n c e s on b e h a v i o u r a l l y assessed a s s e r t i v e n e s s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d a s s e r t i v e n e s s may r e f l e c t the low c o r r e l a t i o n between behavioural and s e l f - r e p o r t response domains found g e n e r a l l y i n the b e h a v i o u r a l research. This wasl a l s o found to be true i n t h i s study (r(40)=.03). 90 Moreover, one must ask whether s e l f - r e p o r t i n v e n t o r i e s on a s s e r t i v e n e s s can s e n s i t i v e l y assess s i t u a t i o n a l l y - s p e c i f i c behaviour change? Hersen and BeHack ( i n press) have pointed out that t r e a t -ment st u d i e s on a s s e r t i v e n e s s which get changes on s e l f - r e p o r t measures use t h i s f i n d i n g i n support of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r treatment whereas s t u d i e s which do not r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f -reported change tend to d i s c l a i m s e l f - r e p o r t measures as unsuited and i n s e n s i t i v e . In the l a t t e r case, the assumption that a t r e a t -ment i n t e r v e n t i o n has produced change and that g l o b a l s e l f - r e p o r t measures are i n s e n s i t i v e i n d i c a t o r s of s p e c i f i c behaviour motoric change has been regarded w i t h ..caution i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The d i s p a r i t y between n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - r e p o r t e d a s s e r t i v e n e s s and s i g n i f i c a n t behavioural improvement i n the l a b o r a t o r y has s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Behavioural change without corresponding s e l f - r e p o r t change may not be s u r p r i s i n g i n l i g h t of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' s f i n d i n g of n e g l i b l e t r a n s f e r of a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s i n the n a t u r a l s e t t i n g . I f there i s a l a c k of i n v i v o t r a n s f e r then one has fewer o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n which to s e l f -observe b e h a v i o u r a l change and t h e r e f o r e to s e l f - r e p o r t change. Kopel and Arkowitz (1975) have reported that p l a y i n g a new r o l e or doing b e h a v i o u r a l homework assignments tend to enhance- an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f - o b s e r v a t i o n of novel behaviours and f a c i l i t a t e new s e l f - i n f e r e n c e s . The s p e c u l a t i o n that strong t r a n s f e r of s k i l l s 91 and a c t i v e i n v i v o performance f a c i l i t a t e s p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e p o r t e d changes req u i r e s f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S e l f - r e p o r t measures assessing a n x i e t y and aggressiveness showed no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s . While one would have hoped that treatment would have been s u f f i c i e n t l y powerful to e f f e c t change i n these areas, t h i s d i d not occur. The treatment groups d i d not report s i g n i f i c a n t decrements i n anxiety as a r e s u l t of treatment. Furthermore, a separate a n a l y s i s on a n x i e t y - r e l a t e d s o c i a l competence items (those i d e n t i f i e d by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n Braun & Reynolds, 1969) d i d not y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s . I t may have been o p t i m i s t i c to have hoped that a beha v i o u r a l t r a i n -i n g program would have a l s o a f f e c t e d s e l f - r e p o r t e d anxiety and aggression*: areas which i t d i d not ta r g e t f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . I n c l o s i n g , the f i n d i n g s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n emphasize the u t i l i t y of a treatment s t r a t e g y which tar g e t s response s k i l l d e f i -c i t s and examines the e f f e c t s of treatment and environmental stimu-lu s c o n ditions upon those beh a v i o u r a l components. Verbal components were s u c c e s s f u l l y modified by treatment but non-verbal components appeared to r e q u i r e more t r a i n i n g than the four week s k i l l s pro-gramme conducted i n t h i s study. The a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s complex as di s s e c t e d i n t o c r i t i c a l b e h a v i o u r a l components warrants the f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n of researchers i n t e r e s t e d i n examining what treatment 92 procedures optimally modify p a r t i c u l a r components and what the r o l e of verbal and non-verbal components i s i n any given assertive com-munication. A s i t u a t i o n a l l y - s p e c i f i c behavioural programme which i s o l a t e s the problematic s o c i a l - i n t e r p e r s o n a l contexts appear to be a promising approach for t r a i n i n g assertive behaviour. ''93 References 1. A l b e r t i , R. E. & Emmons, M..L. Your perfect r i g h t . (2nd ed.). San Luis Obispo,,California: Impact, 1974. 2. Baer, D. M., Wolfe, M. M., & Risley, T. R. Some current dimensions of applied behavioral analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioural  Analysis, 1969, l y 91-9 7. 3. Bandura, A. P r i n c i p l e s i n behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969. 4. Bandura, A., Blanchard, E. B., & R i t t e r , B. The r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and modeling approaches for inducing behavioral, e f f e c t i v e , and a t t i t u d i n a l changes. Journal of Personality and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1969, 13, 173-99. 5. Bandura, A., Grusec, J . E., & Menlove, F. L. Vicarious e x t i n c t i o n of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 5_, 449-455. 6. Bandura, A., & Menlove, F. L. Factors determining v i c a r i o u s extinc-t i o n through symbolic modeling. Journal of S o c i a l Psychology, Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 8_, 99-108. ".94 7. Barnard, G. W., F l e s l e r , C. K. & Steinbrook, R. M. The treatment of u r i n a r y r e t e n t i o n by av e r s i v e c e s s a t i o n and a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1966, 4_, 232-237. 8. Boies, K.C. Role p l a y i n g as a behavior change technique: Review of the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,  and P r a c t i c e , 1972, 9(2), 186-192. 9. Borgatta, E.(F. An a n a l y s i s of three l e v e l s of response: an a p p r a i s a l of some r e l a t i o n s h i p s among dimensions of p e r s o n a l i t y . Sociometry, 1951, 14, 267-73. 10. Braginsky, B. M., Braginsky, D. D., & Ring, K. Methods of  madness; the mental h o s p i t a l as the l a s t r e s o r t . New York: H o l t , Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969. 11. Bumpus, F. Toward a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g : A d i s c u s s i o n of various b e h a v i o r a l techniques. Paper read a t Western P s y c h o l o g i c a l As- s o c i a t i o n , P o r t l a n d , Oregon, 1972. 12. Braun, P. R. & Reynolds, D. N. A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of a 100-item fear survey inventory. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, 399-402. 95 13. Buss, A. H., and Durkee, A. An inventory f o r assessing d i f f e r e n t kinds of h o s t i l i t y . J o u r n a l of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21(4), 343-348. 14. Cautela, J . R. A behavior therapy approach to pervasive a n x i e t y . Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, 4_, 99-104. 15. Chittenden, G. E. An experimental study i n measuring and modifying a s s e r t i v e behavior i n a c h i l d . Monographs f o r the S o c i e t y of Research i n C h i l d Development, 1942, 7_(1, S e r i a l No. 31). 16. C o r s i n i , R. J . Roleplaying i n psychotherapy: A manual. Chicago: A l d i n e , 1966. 17. C r a i g , K.D. P h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l as a f u n c t i o n of imagined, v i c a r i o u s , and d i r e c t s t r e s s experiences. J o u r n a l of Abnormal  Psychology, 1968, 73, 513-520. 18. Edwards, N. B. Case conference: A s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n the case of homosexual p e d o p h i l i a . J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and  Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, 3(1), 55-63 96 19. E i s l e r , R. M., Hersen, M. & Agras, W. S. Videotape: a method for the c o n t r o l l e d observation of non-verbal interpersonal behaviour. Behavior Therapy, 1973, _4, 420-425. 20. E i s l e r , R. M., Hersen, M., & M i l l e r , P. M. The e f f e c t s of modeling on components., of assertive behavior. Journal of . Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1973, 4(1), 1-6. 21. E i s l e r , R. M., Hersen, M., & M i l l e r , P. M. Shaping components of a ssertive behavior with i n s t r u c t i o n s and feedback. American  Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 131(21), 1344-1347. 22. E i s l e r , R. M. , Hersen, M., M i l l e r , P. M., & Blanchard, E. B. S i t u a t i o n a l determinants of a s s e r t i v e behaviour. Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43(3), 330-340. 23. E i s l e r , R. M., M i l l e r , P. M., Hersen, M. , A l f o r d , H. A. E f f e c t s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g on marital i n t e r a c t i o n . Archives of General Psychiatry, 1974, 30, 643-649. 24. Ekman, P. The d i f f e r e n t i a l communication of a f f e c t by head and body cues. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 19.6.5> 2(5) , 726-735. 97 25. Fensterheim, H. A s s e r t i v e methods and m a r i t a l problems. In R. D. Rubin, H. Fensterheim, J . D. Henderson (Eds.), Advances i n Behavior Therapy ••(Vol. 4 ) , New York: Academic Press, 1972. 26. F i e l d , G. D., & Test, M. A. Group a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g f o r severely d i s t u r b e d p a t i e n t s . J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy  and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1975, 6_, 129-134. 27. Foy, D. M., E i s l e r , R. M., & P i n k s t o n , S. Modeled a s s e r t i o n i n a case of e x p l o s i v e sages. J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy  and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1975, 6^, 135-137. 28. Friedman, P. H. The e f f e c t s of modeling and r o l e p l a y i n g on a s s e r t i v e behavior. In R. D. Rubin, H. Fensterheim, A. A. Lazarus, & C. M. Franks (Eds.), Advances i n Behavior Therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1971, 149-169. 29. G a l a s s i , J . P., & G a l a s s i , M. D. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between as-s e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1975, 36, 352-354. 30. G a l a s s i , J . P., G a l a s s i , M. D. & L i t z , M. C. A s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n groups using video-feedback. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology,1974, 21, 390-394. ;-98 31. Geer, J . & T u r t l e t a u b , A. Fear r e d u c t i o n f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n of a model. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 6, 327-331. 32. Gentry, D. W., & K i r w i n , P. W. C o n s t r i c t i o n , aggression, and a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1972, _0, 297-298. 33. Gerst, M. D. Symbolic coding processes i n o b s e r v a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g . In A. Bandura (Ed.), P s y c h o l o g i c a l modeling: c o n f l i c t i n g t h e o r i e s . New York: A l d i n e Atherton, Inc., 1971, 89-112. 34. Gittelman, M. Behavior r e h e a r s a l as a technique 'in c h i l d t r e a t -ment. J o u r n a l of C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y , 1965, 6_, 251-255. 35. Goldsmith, J . B., & M c F a l l , R. M. Development and e v a l u a t i o n of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l - t r a i n i n g program f o r p s y c h i a t r i c i n -p a t i e n t s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84(1), 51-58. 36. G o l d s t e i n , A. P., Martens, J . , Hubben, J . , Van B e l l e , H. A., Schaaf, W., Wiersma, H., & Goldhart,.A. The use of modeling to increase independent behavior. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1973, 11, 31-42. 99 37. Gormally, J . , H i l l , C., O t i s , M., & Rainey, L. A micro t r a i n i n g approach to a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22(4), 299-303. 38. Green, R., & M a r l a t t , D. E f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n s and modeling upon a f f e c t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e v e r b a l i z a t i o n . J o u r n a l of  Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 2, 189-192. 39. Gutride, M...E., G o l d s t e i n , A. P., & Hunter, G. F. The use of model-ing and r o l e p l a y i n g to i n c r e a s e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n among a s o c i a l p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . J o u r n a l Of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 40 ( 3 ) , 408-415. 40. Hanson, R. & Bencomo, A. Adapting a s t r u c t u r e d a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g program to a group of chronic p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . Newsletter f o r Research i n Psychology, 1972, 14(4), 17-18. 41. Hartmann, D. P. Considerations i n the choice of i n t e r o b s e r v e r r e l i a b i l i t y estimates. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , i n press. ( A v a i l a b l e from author at U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, S a l t Lake C i t y , Utah). 42. H a s k e l l , M. R. Role t r a i n i n g as a p r e p a r a t i o n f o r r e l e a s e from a c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n . J o u r n a l of C r i m i n a l Law, Criminology,  and P o l i c e Science, 1969, 50, 447-450. 100 43. Hedquist, F. J . & Weinhold, B. K. B e h a v i o r a l counseling w i t h s o c i a l l y anxious and u n a s s e r t i v e c o l l e g e students. J o u r n a l of  Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17(3), 237-242. 44. Hersen, M. Self^assessment of f e a r . Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 241-257. 45. Hersen, M. & B e l l a c k , A. S. A m u l t i p l e b a s e l i n e a n a l y s i s of s o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g i n chronic s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . J o u r n a l of  A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , i n press. 46. Hersen, M., E i s l e r , R. M., & M i l l e r , P. M. An experimental a n a l y s i s of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . Behavior  Research and Therapy, 1974, 12, 295-310. 47. Hersen, M. & M i l l e r , P. M. S o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g f o r n e u r o t i -c a l l y depressed c l i e n t s . Unpublished manupscript, 1974. ( A v a i l -able from P. M. M i l l e r , Veterens A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Center, U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s i s s i p p i . M e d i c a l Center, Jackson, M i s s i s s i p p i ) . 48. Jessness, C. F. The youth center research p r o j e c t : D i f f e r e n t i a l  treatment of delinquents i n an i n s t i t u t i o n . Second annual"progress r e p o r t , (Research Report No. 47), C a l i f o r n i a Youth A u t h o r i t y , December, 1969. 101 49. Jesness, C. F. Manual f o r the Jesness behavior c h e c k l i s t . Obtained from Consulting P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s , Inc., 1971. 50. Kasdin, A. E. E f f e c t s of covert modeling and model reinforcement on a s s e r t i v e behavior. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 83(3), 240-252. 51. K e l l y , G. A. The psychology of personal c o n s t r u c t s , V o l . 11,  c l i n i c a l diagnosis and psychotherapy. New York: Norton Press, 1955. 52. Keppel, G. Design and a n a l y s i s : A researcher's handbook. Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1973. 53. Kopel, A. S., & Arkowtiz, H. S. Role p l a y i n g as a source of s e l f - o b s e r v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 1974, 29(5), 677-686. 54. Lawrence, P. The assessment and m o d i f i c a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e behavior. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , A r i z o n a State U n i v e r s i t y , 1970)". D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1970, 31, 396B-397B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 70-11, 888). 55. Laws, D. R. & Serber, M. Measurement and e v a l u a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g w i t h sexual offenders. Paper read at the A s s o c i a t i o n  f o r the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Washington, D. C , 1971. 102 56. Lazarus, A. A behavior r e h e a r s a l vs. n o n - d i r e c t i v e therapy vs. advice i n e f f e c t i n g behavior change. Behavior Research and  Therapy, 1966, h, 209-212. 57. Lazarus, A. A. Behavior Therapy and Beyond. New York: McGraw-H i l l Book Co., Inc., 1971. 58. L e i b o w i t z , G. Comparison of s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l techniques of assessing aggression. J o u r n a l of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1968,_3_2, 21-25. 59. Lomont, J . F., G i l n e r , F. H., Spector, N. J . , & Skinner, K. K. Group a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g and group i n s i g h t therapies. P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Reports, 1969, 25, 463-470. 60. MacPherson, E. S e l e c t i v e operant c o n d i t i o n i n g and decondi t i o n i n g of a s s e r t i v e modes of behavior. J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and  Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, 3_, 99-102. 61. M a r l a t t , G. A.. Task s t r u c t u r e and the experimental m o d i f i c a t i o n of v e r b a l behavior. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1972, 78 ( 3 ) , 335-350. 62. M c F a l l , M. & Marston, A. R. An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of behavior r e h e a r s a l i n a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . J o u r n a l of Abnormal  Psychology, 1970, _76, 295-303. 1 0 3 6 3 . McFall, R . M., & Twentymen, C. T . Four experiments on the r e l a -t i v e contributions of rehearsal, modeling, and coaching to assertive t r a i n i n g . Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1 9 7 3 , 8 1 ( 3 ) » 1 9 9 - 2 1 8 . 6 4 . Meichenbaum, D . H. Examination of model c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n reducing avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1 9 7 1 , 1 7 ( 3 ) , 2 9 8 - 3 0 7 . 6 5 . Mischel W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1 9 6 8 . 6 6 . Moreno, J. L . Psychodrama Vol. I . New York: Beacon House, 1 9 7 1 6 7 . Nydegger, R. V. The elimination of h a l l u c i n a t o r y and delusional behavior by verbal conditioning and assertive t r a i n i n g : a case study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1 9 7 2 , j 3 , 2 2 5 - 2 2 7 . 6 8 . O'Connor, R . D . M o d i f i c i a t i o n of s o c i a l withdrawal through sym-b o l i c modeling. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1 9 6 9 , _2, 1 5 - 2 2 . 69^. Orenstein, W., Orenstein, R . , & Carr, W. Assertiveness and Anxiety: A c o r r e l a t i o n a l study. Journal of Behavior Therapy  and Experimental Psychiatry, 1 9 7 5 , 6_, 2 0 3 - 2 1 7 . 104 70. P e r c e l l , L. P., Berwick, P. T., & B e i g e l , P. T. The e f f e c t s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g on s e l f - c o n c e p t and a n x i e t y . Archives of  General P s y c h i a t r y , 1974, 31, 502-504. 71,. Prazak, J . A. Learning job seeking i n t e r v i e w s k i l l s . In J . D. Krumboltz, and C. E. Thoresen (Eds. );.,, B e h a v i o r a l counseling:  Cases and techniques. New York: H o l t , Rinehart, and Winston, 1969, 414-28. 72. Rathus, S. A. An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n a group s e t t i n g . J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and Experimental  P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, _3, 81-86. 73. Rathus, S. A. A t h i r t y item schedule f o r assessing a s s e r t i v e behavior. . Behavior Therapy, 1973a, 4_, 398-406. 74. Rathus, S. A. I n s t i g a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e behavior through v i d e o -tape mediated models and d i r e c t e d p r a c t i s e . Behavior Research  and Therapy, 1973b, 11, 57-65. 75. Rimm, D. C., H i l l , G. A., Brown, N. N., & S t u a r t , J . E. Group a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n the treatment of expression of i n a p p r o p r i a t e -anger. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1974, 3_4, 791-798. 105 76. Rimm, D. C., Keyson, M., & Hunziker, J . Group a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n the treatment of a n t i s o c i a l aggression. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. 77. Rimm, D. C. & Masters, J . C. Behavior therapy: Techniques and  e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1974. 78. R i t t e r , B. The group d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s snake phobias using v i c a r i o u s and contact d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n procedures. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1968, _, 1-6. 79. R i t t e r , B. The use of contact d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , demonstration \ plus p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and demonstration alone i n the treatment of acrophobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1969, ]_, 157-164. 80. Roback, D., Frayn, D., Gunby, L., & Tuters, K. A m u l t i f a c t o r i a l approach to the treatment and ward management of s e l f - m u t i l a t i n g p a t i e n t s . Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, 3, 189-193. 81.. Ross, D. , Ross, S. & Evans, R. The m o d i f i c a t i o n of extreme s o c i a l withdrawal by modeling w i t h guided p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Behavior Therapy  and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1971, 2 j _ 0 » 273-79. 106 82. Sarason, I . G. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among measures of h o s t i l i t y . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1961, 17, 192-195. 83. Sarason, I . G. Verbal l e a r n i n g , modeling and j u v e n i l e d e l i n -quency. American P s y c h o l o g i s t ^ 1968, 23_, 254-66. 84\ Sarason, I. G. & Ganger, V. J . S o c i a l i n f l u e n c e techniques i n c l i n i c a l and community psychology. In C. D. S p i e l b e r g e r (Ed.), Current t o p i c s i n c l i n i c a l and community psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, 1969. 85. Scopetta, M., A. A comparison of modeling approaches to the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d male adolescent offenders implemented by p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , > U n i v e r s i t y of Miami, 1972). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1972,,3071A-3072A . ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 72-31, 901). 86. Serber, M. Teaching the non-assertive components of a s s e r t i v e behavior. Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, 3_, 1-5. 107 87. Serber, M. & Nelson, P. The i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g w i t h h o s p i t a l i z e d s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . Behavior Therapy  and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1971, _2, 253-54. 88. Sturm, I.E. The b e h a v i o r i s t i c aspect of psychodrama. Group  Psychotherapy. 1965, 18, 50-64. 89";. T i n s l e y , H. C. & Grant, E. M. Colorado's pre-parole r e l e a s e center. S t a t e Government, 1960, __, 111-113. 90. Wallace, C. J . , Teigen, T. R., Liberman, R. P., & Baker, V. D e s t r u c t i v e behavior t r e a t e d by contingency c o n t r a c t s and a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g : A case study. J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy  and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1973, _, 273-274. 91. Weinman, B., G e l b a r t , P., Wallace, M., & Post, M. Inducing a s s e r t i v e behavior i n chronic s c h i z o p h r e n i c s : A comparison of socioenvironment, d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , and r e l a x a t i o n t h e r a p i e s . J o u r n a l of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 39(2)., 246-252. 108 92. Whalen, C. The e f f e c t s of a model and i n s t r u c t i o n s on group v e r b a l behavior. J o u r n a l of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1966, 33, 509-521. 93. Winer, B. „J.r, S t a t i s t i c p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental design (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. 94. Wolpe, J . Psychotherapy by r e c i p r o c a l i n h i b i t i o n . Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1958. 95. Wolpe, J . The p r a c t i s e of behavior therapy. New York: Pergammon Press, 1973. 9 6 . Wolpe, J . & Lazarus, A. Behavior therapy techniques. Oxford: Pergammon, 1966. 9.7. Young, E. R. , Rimm, D. C. , & Kennedy, T. D. An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of modeling and v e r b a l reinforcement i n the modi-f i c a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e behavior. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1973, 11, 317-319. 109 Appendix A S o c i a l S k i l l s Programme  The purpose of t h i s programme i s to help inmates a p p r o p r i a t e l y express t h e i r f e e l i n g s more c l e a r l y . The a b i l i t y to do t h i s e f f e c t i v e l y i s a s k i l l that can be taught. In t h i s t r a i n i n g pro-gramme we would l i k e to teach and discuss v a r i o u s approaches to s i t u a t i o n s i n which inmates consider i t d i f f i c u l t to express them-s e l v e s . Watching videotapes, p r a c t i c i n g these s k i l l s , and d i s c u s -s i n g v a r ious approaches i s p a r t of t h i s . The programme i n v o l v e s approximately three appointments per week f o r one month. I n t e r e s t e d persons should understand that they may withdraw at anytime without any consequences. In regard to t e s t -i n g i n the beginning and end of the programme, p a r t i c i p a n t s should understand the b a s i c r i g h t s to which they are e n t i t l e d . They are the f o l l o w i n g : 1) Signed consent forms must be obtained. 2) Any data that i s obtained i s c o n f i d e n t i a l , and i n the presence of a treatment s t a f f member, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the r e s u l t s can be made a v a i l a b l e . Only without names attached' w i l l any records be made p u b l i c f o r j o u r n a l s , p u b l i c addresses, research or classroom p r e s e n t a t i o n s . 3) The vo l u n t e e r s h a l l have the opportunity to ask questions regarding the p r o j e c t and i s e n t i t l e d to have those questions answered by the end of the p o s t t e s t i n g i f not before. 4) The p a r t i c i p a n t has the r i g h t to inform the RPC e t h i c s committee or Medical D i r e c t o r w i t h any perceived v i o l a t i o n s o f , or questions about the p a t i e n t ' s r i g h t s . 110 Appendix B.1 Directions Audiotaped Instructions to the Behavioural Test of Assertiveness A seri e s of s i t u a t i o n s w i l l be presented to you. In each s i t u a t i o n , a person w i l l say something to you and you are to reply to what that person says. Try to imagine that each s i t u a t i o n i s a c t u a l l y occuring to you as i t i s being described. When a person says some-thing to you, use the words and gestures that you a c t u a l l y would i n the r e a l s i t u a t i o n . Relax and try to put yourself into i t . Rather than explain what you might say, a c t u a l l y say i t . There i s no r i g h t response or no wrong response so try to be honest and spontaneous i n giving a response that you f e e l i s your own. If you do not f e e l that you would say anything i n a given s i t u a t i o n simply say, "no response". Please look at the video camera i n front of you. An example s i t u a t i o n might be the following: You are standing behind a counter i n a store. You are the sales person and an.angry customer i s saying to you "This i s the t h i r d time I've brought back t h i s new watch. Can you give me any reason why I should spend a l l my time returning your defective products?" (Two second pause) You would reply as you might i f you were a c t u a l l y i n that s i t u a t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n s that you are to respond to w i l l now follow. Just relax and be yourself. I l l Appendix B.2 Behavioural Test of A s s e r t i v e n e s s Category N a r r a t i o n P o s i t i v e - I n s i d e P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - I n s i d e P r i s o n Negative-Outside P r i s o n "You have warm f e e l i n g s f o r a- female s t a f f member at the i n s t i t u i o n . You b e l i e v e the s t a f f member f e e l s the same way but decide to c l a r i f y t h i s f o r your own sake. A conversation w i t h t h i s s t a f f member begins one morning i n her o f f i c e when she says to you 'Good morning, how are you today?'" You say, ..." (1 ) ( 2 8 ) * "A s t a f f member has r e a l l y been your f r i e n d . This person has reached out to you and supported you through a number of d i f f i c u l t times. You are i n an ongoing conversation w i t h t h i s person and f e e l t h i s i s an opportunity to express what the f r i e n d s h i p means to you. You say, ... " (2)(59) "You go i n to ask your boss f o r a r a i s e . You say: 'I f e e l that my work here has been of good q u a l i t y . I l i k e working here and want to stay. Could you please consider me f o r a r a i s e ? ' He says, 'Well, I'm glad you're here because I have been wanting to t e l l you that new c o n t r a c t has f a l l e n through and we j u s t have to l e t you go. I'm s o r r y about t h i s because I do consider your work of good q u a l i t y . ' You say, ..." (3) (47) "You are working and your r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h your new boss i s not good. You took the job w i t h him knowing about your re c o r d and asked f o r an honest chance. The job now i s n ' t panning o f f . Your r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h your boss i s tenuous. He says, 'I knew I should have never t r u s t e d somebody w i t h your record'.' You say, ..." (4) (56) * (1) Refers to the order i n which each s i t u a t i o n was presented i n the BTA (28) Refers to the number of t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n the o r i g i n a l p o o l of sample s i t u a t i o n s . Negative-Outside P r i s o n 112 Appendix B.2 (continued) Behavioural Test of Asser t i v e n e s s Category N a r r a t i o n P o s i t i v e - O u t s i d e P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - O u t s i d e P r i s o n Negative-Inside P r i s o n Negative-Outside P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - I n s i d e P r i s o n Negative-Inside P r i s o n "A person you f e e l a growing concern f o r says to you, 'When we t a l k , I don't know why I t e l l you these things about myself. I guess, I'm r e a l l y g e t t i n g to t r u s t you.!' You say, ..." (5) (61) "You are i n t e r e s t e d i n making a date f o r a movie w i t h a person you have met and t a l k e d w i t h three or four times before. You c a l l , the person answers and you t a l k about i n c i d e n t a l s . A pause i n the con-v e r s a t i o n occurs and you decide that t h i s i s a good time to ask. You say, ... " (6)(62) "You are standing w i t h a group of inmates who b e l i e v e you have leaked i n f o r m a t i o n personal to them. You t e l l them that you haven't but one of them continues and says: 'I j u s t don't care what you say, I t h i n k you're a l i a r . ' You say, ..." (7)(a) "The parking l o t attendant b r i n g s your car w i t h a minor but n o t i c e a b l e s c r a t c h . You e x p l a i n i t wasn't there when you drove i t i n and he says: 'Look mac, we get a thousand cranks a day l i k e you who want us to pay f o r dents on t h e i r car.' You say, ..." _ (8)(50) "A new inmate i s admitted and happens to b e . s i t t i n g by you w a i t i n g i n one of the new o f f i c e s . You decide to i n i t i a t e the conversation and meet him. You say, ..." (9)(21) "Your t r a n s f e r board c a l l s you regarding a t r a n s f e r and your p a r o l e officerccomes down hard on you regarding an o l d re p o r t . He says, 'This past i n c i d e n t s e r i o u s l y cuts down your chances f o r a 113 Appendix Bw 2 (continued) Behavioural Test of Assertiveness Category N a r r a t i o n Negative-Outside P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - I n s i d e P r i s o n Negative-Inside P r i s o n Negative-Inside P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - O u t s i d e P r i s o n t r a n s f e r to a minimum s e c u r i t y p r i s o n and we j u s t don't t h i n k you can j u s t i f y to us why you should be t r a n s f e r r e d . ' You say, ..." (10)(36) "You are w a i t i n g f o r 30 minutes i n an o f f i c e f o r a job i n t e r v i e w . A s e c r e t a r y i s s i t t i n g behind the desk i n the o f f i c e . She says: 'I'm s o r r y Mr. Briggs can't see you t h i s morning even though you made an appointment. Can you come tomorrow?' You say: 'Well a c t u a l l y I made another appointment f o r tomorrow.' She says: 'Well then, i f you are too busy to see him, I j u s t don't t h i n k we can help you.' You say, ..." (11)(26) "A f r i e n d of yours looks p a r t i c u l a r l y good, and you t h i n k of complimenting him. You say, ..." (12)(14) "Antagonism has b u i l t up f o r a long time w i t h another inmate. An angry conversa-t i o n w i t h him b u i l d s to the p o i n t of him saying, 'I can t h i n k of l o t s of good reasons f o r blowing you away, so stay out of my way.' You say, ..." (13)(30) "You've avoided complaining to the s t a f f f o r sometime now, but t h i s f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n keeps bothering you. The s t a f f member causing you t h i s upsetness walks past you w i t h an u n f r i e n d l y look but says nothing. You say, ..." (14)(29) "Your boss comes up to you a f t e r watching you help an angry customer. He says, 'You know, I'm glad we h i r e d y o u — y o u handle the customers w i t h r e a l under-standing.' You say, ..." (15)(60) 114 Appendix B.2 (continued) Behavioural Test of Assertiveness Category Narration  Positive-Outside Prison "A male f r i e n d who i s one of your clo s e s t buddies i s s i t t i n g with you. He says: 'I'm glad we can rap sometimes. I con-sider you a*.good f r i e n d . ' You say, ... " (16)(57) The therapist f o r the treatment groups also made the audio-tapes of the Behavioural Test of Assertiveness. Since a subject's recognition of the therapist's voice might a f f e c t h i s responses on the test an audiotape using another voice was made. A check that the d i f f e r e n t voices on the audiotape had not af f e c t e d responses was made. Five t - t e s t s on the f i v e dependent v a r i a b l e s ( i . e . , Latency of Response, Loudness of Voice, Eye Contact, Assertive Con-tent, Aggressive Content) were conducted f o r ten subjects using the ol d audiotape and ten subjects using the new audiotape. No s i g n i f -icant differences existed on any of the f i v e v a r i a b l e s . 115 Appendix B.3 Ratings on 62 S i t u a t i o n s from High D i f f i c u l t y to Low D i f f i c u l t y P o s i t i v e I n s i d e - P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s P o s i t i v e O u t s i d e - P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s S i t . # EX SD S i t . # £X SD 28* eX=36 .45 60* ex=32 .50 59* 30 .62 61* 29 . 76 14* 26 1.20 57* 23 .32 35** 24 .83 13** 22 .78 21* 22 1.22 62* 20 .97 16** 22 1.30 37** 20 .45 * S i t u a t i o n s s e l e c t e d f o r Behavioral'. Test of Ass e r t i v e n e s s ** S i t u a t i o n s s e l e c t e d f o r B e h a v i o r a l Test of Transfer Appendix B.3 (continued) 116 Ratings on 62 S i t u a t i o n s from High D i f f i c u l t y to Low D i f f i c u l t y S i t . // EX SD S i t . # ex SD 9* e'x=40 .23 50* £X=41 1 .95 29* 37 .54 47* 37 .23 34** 37 1. 20 56* 36 .52 20** 37 .60 23 34 1. 79 31 36 2.32 26* 34 .60 18 35 2.30 24** 34 .32 38 35 .54 48** 34 .45 30* 35 . 76 5 32 2.34 36* 34 .97 46 32 3.50 40 33 2.32 49 31 1.20 19 32 .45 25 31 3.54 55 32 .48 33 30 .76 32 31 2.30 45 29 1.23 39 29 2.30 12 28 .97 1 25 4.50 43 28 1.27 15 24 .45 8 27 3.10 42 23 .50 44 27 2.50 17 22 1.30 53 27 3.32 54 27 .53 7 26 1.20 2 25 2.35 52 25 3.50 4 24 2.37 10 24 .97 51 24 . .32 11 22 .95 58 22 1.50 3 19 1.32 * S i t u a t i o n s s e l e c t e d f o r B e h a v i o r a l Test of As s e r t i v e n e s s ** S i t u a t i o n s s e l e c t e d f o r B e h a v i o r a l Test of Transfer 117 Appendix B.4 Behavioural Test of Transfer Category N a r r a t i o n Negative-Inside P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - O u t s i d e P r i s o n Negative-Outside P r i s o n Negative-Outside P r i s o n Positive-Inside P r i s o n Negative-Inside P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - O u t s i d e P r i s o n P o s i t i v e - ' I . n s i d e P r i s o n "A domineering guard says to you: 'Shape up buddy or I ' l l make your stay p r e t t y miserable. You say, (17)(20) "You are home w i t h f r i e n d s a f t e r r e l e a s e . Someone says, 'You know, i t ' s r e a l l y n i c e to have you back home again. ' You say, ... " (18) (57) "Your car i s being tuned and the mechanic hands you a b i l l f o r $200.00 saying: 'We found a major overhaul was necessary, I hope you w i l l be pleased w i t h our work." You say: 'I d i d not b r i n g mya car In f o r t h i s and can't pay the amount.' He says, '.'Then you won't be l e a v i n g w i t h your car.' You say, ... " (.19) (24) "You are at a job i n t e r v i e w a f t e r your r e l e a s e and the interviewer, says: 'Could you please account f o r how. you've spent the l a s t few years?' You say, ... " (20)(48) "You are working i n one of the o f f i c e s and a female s t a f f says to you: 'You know you're r e a l l y making changes and coming out of your s h e l l . ' You say, ... " (21)(16) "A s t a f f member t r e a t s you l i k e a some-body w i t h no sense i n your head. He c r i t i c i z e s you by saying, 'Hey, can't you do anything r i g h t ? ' You say, ..." (22)(34) "Someone says to you, 'You look n i c e today.' You say, ..." (.23) (13) "You f i n d y o u r s e l f complaining about l i t t l e things when a l l you r e a l l y are i s bored and wanting•the time ;of a s t a f f member to t a l k t o . A s t a f f member passes by you i n the hall,-,and says, 'You look t r o u b l e d , would you l i k e to t a l k a b i t ? ' You say, ... " (.24) (.35) 118 Appendix C . l I n t e r r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y VI V2 V3 V4 V5 Rater 1, and Judge: r 2 ( 1 8 ) = .94 .94 .90 .90 .86 Maintenance check on Rater 1, and Judge: r 2 ( 8 ) = .93 .94 .82 .98 .84 Raters 1, 2, and Judge: r 3 ( 1 0 ) = . 73 .74 .74 .74 .49 Maintenance check on Rater 2, and Judge: r 2 ( 1 5 ) = .85 .87 .87 .95 .80 VI = Latency of Response V2 = Loudness of Voice V3 = Eye Contact V4 = A s s e r t i v e Content V5 = Aggressive Content 119 Appendix C. 2 Concordance Between Raters A subject's t o t a l score may range from 0-64 ( i . e . , 0-4 on s i x t e e n s i t u a t i o n s ) . Since there are t h i r t e e n p o i n t s per category ( i . e . , 64/5 c a t e g o r i e s ) , agreement was defined as one r a t e r being w i t h i n + 6.5 p o i n t s of the. other r a t e r . Concordance = agreement/agreement + disagreement. The concordance percentages are presented below. VI V2 V3 V4 V5 Raters 1, and Judge: r 2(18> = 100% 100% 78% 89% 100% Maintenance check, Raters 1, and Judge: £ 2(8) = 100% 88% 88% 88% 100% Raters 2, and Judge: r,(15) = 100% 72% 80% 66% 100% VI = Latency of Response V2 = Loudness of Voice V3 = Eye Contact V4 = A s s e r t i v e Content V5 = Aggressive Content ^ 120 Appendix C.3 Mean D i f f e r e n c e Between Raters* N VI V2 V3 V4 V5 Upper--Lower Bounds Rater 1, and Judge: 18 1.12 1.62 5.22 4.00 9. 09 0 - 64. Maintenance check on r a t e r : 8 1.50 . 3.62 4.25 2.00 1. 37 0 - 64 Rater 2, and Judge: 15 .40 2.20 3.20 3.80 1. 00 0 - 64 VI = Latency of Response V2 = Loudness of Voice V3 = Eye Contact V4 = A s s e r t i v e Content V5 = Aggressive Content * The mean d i f f e r e n c e between r a t e r s was c a l c u l a t e d by s u b t r a c t i n g the r a t e r ' s score from the judge's ( i . e . , sum score across 16 s i t u a t i o n s ) and d i v i d i n g by number of s u b j e c t s . Appendix D Check on D i f f e r e n t i a l Lying Among the Groups Source df MS F Groups 3 52.48 .51 Pre-Post 1 39.20 3.52 Groups X Pre-Post 3 9.90 .88 Subjects 36 103.90 Error 36 11.14 * £ ' l .05 ** £ < .01 Check on D i f f e r e n t i a l Defensiveness Among the Groups Source df MS F Groups 3 2.70 .19 Pre-Post 1 .20 .06 Groups X Pre-Post 3 .70 .22 Subjects 36 14.41 Error 36 3.16 * £ _ .05 ** £ _ .01 Appendix E Check on Therapist Bias Source Groups 2 7.46 1.09 Session 4 11.78 1.73 Groups X Sessions 8 11.02 1.63 Subjects 9 21.66 E r r o r 126 6.84 * p i . 05 ** p<..01 Appendix F Session by Session Synopsis of ! S k i l l s Programme Ses- Behaviour Rehearsal Placebo Control Test-Retest sion Modeling Group Group Group Control Pretesting Pretesting Pretesting Pretesting 1 Introduction to Introduction to Introduction to No meeting Assertive Training Assertive Training Assertive Training 1 P o s i t i v e Videotape: The Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape and Dis-Inside expression of warm Ways of expressing cussion: Discussion Prison f e e l i n g s f o r a s t a f f warm feelings f o r a why personal warmth member s t a f f member i s against the prison code 2 2 P o s i t i v e Videotape: Thanking Behaviour Reharsal: Videotape and Dis- No meeting Inside a s t a f f member for How to thank a s t a f f cussion: Discussion Prison assistance member for a s s i s - on personal warmth tance and the prison code (continued) 3 3 Negative Videotape: Asking Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape and Dis- No meeting Outside your boss f o r a How to ask your boss cussion: Discussion Prison r a i s e for a raise on the s i t u a t i o n when Situa- making requests i n t i o n large organizations Appendix F (continued) Ses- Behaviour Rehearsal Test-Retest sion Modeling Group Group Placebo Control Control 4 4 Negative Videotape: Receiving Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape & Dis- No meeting Outside accusations from your Ways of receiving cussion: Discussion Prison boss about being a accusations from on how one feels Situa- con your boss about when confronted t i o n being a con 5 5 P o s i t i v e Videotape: Receiving Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape & Dis- No meeting Outside a personal compliment How to receive a cussion: Friendships Prison of . t r u s t from a personal compliment i n Prison: Can they S i t u a - f r i e n d of t r u s t from a exist? t i o n f r i e n d 6 P o s i t i v e Videotape: Date- Behaviour Rehearsal: No meeting Outside making Date-making Prison S i t u a -t i o n 6 7 Negative Videotape: Accusa- Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape: Discus- No meeting Inside t i o n that you are a Ways to respond to sion on how one feels Prison l i a r accusations that you when being confronted S i t u a - are a l i a r t i o n 8 Negative Videotape: Arguing Behaviour Rehearsal: ii No meeting Outside with a parking l o t How to argue with a Prison attendant parking l o t S i t u a - attendant t i o n Appendix F> (continued) Ses- Behaviour Rehearsal Test-Retest s i o n Modeling Group Group Placebo C o n t r o l C o n t r o l 7 9 P o s i t i v e Videotape: I n i t i - Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape and D i s - No meeting I n s i d e a t i n g a conversation How to i n i t i a t e cussion: Friendships P r i s o n conversations i n p r i s o n (cont.) S i t u a -t i o n 10 Negative Videotape: Pre- Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape: The No meeting I n s i d e s e n t i n g y o u r s e l f to How to present your- purposes and funct i o n s P r i s o n your parole board s e l f to your parole of parole boards S i t u a - board t i o n 8 11 Negative Videotape: Obtain- Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape: Discus- No meeting Outside i n g a job i n t e r v i e w How to obt a i n a job s i o n on the f r u s t r a -P r i s o n i n t e r v i e w t i o n s when making S i t u a - requests i n large t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n a p r i s o n system 9 12 P o s i t i v e Videotape: Compli- Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape: F r i e n d - No meeting Ins ide meriting a f e l l o w Ways of complimenting ships i n P r i s o n : P r i s o n inmate a f e l l o w inmate Can they e x i s t ? S i t u a - (cont.) t i o n Appendix F (continued) Ses-s i o n Modeling Group Behaviour Rehearsal : Group  Placebo C o n t r o l Test-Retest C o n t r o l 10 13 Negative Videotape: Managing Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape & D i s - No meeting I n s i d e p h y s i c a l l y a s s a u l t i v e Ways to respond to cus s i o n : Why P r i s o n t h r e a t s p h y s i c a l l y a s s a u l t i v e p h y s i c a l aggres-S i t u a - t h r e a t s s i o n occurs i n t i o n p r i s o n s 11 14 Negative Videotape: Breaking Behaviour Rehearsal: Videotape & D i s - No meeting I n s i d e the c o l d war w i t h a How to break the c o l d cussion on why P r i s o n s t a f f member you've war w i t h a s t a f f antagonism w i t h s t a f f S i t u a - been a v o i d i n g member you've been b u i l d s up t i o n a v o i d i n g 15 P o s i t i v e Videotape: Receiv- Behaviour Rehearsal: D i s c u s s i o n : Honesty No meeting Outside i n g a compliment i n Ways of responding and i t s p l a c e i n P r i s o n a work s i t u a t i o n to compliments at s o c i e t y S i t u a - work t i o n 12 16 P o s i t i v e Videotape: Receiv- Behaviour Rehearsal: D i s c u s s i o n : F r i e n d - No meeting Outside i n g compliments Ways of responding ship i n P r i s o n s : Can P r i s o n from f r i e n d s to compliments from they e x i s t ? S i t u a - f r i e n d s t i o n Closure Closure Closure Post t e s t i n g Post t e s t i n g Post t e s t i n g Post t e s t i n g ON 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on Mean Scores of Latency of Response Source df MS F E r r o r term 1. Pre-Post 1 1.20 31.41*** 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 .04 .27 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 • 09 .78 19 4 Ins i d e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 .00 .02 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .01 .06 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 .03 .14 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .11 .70 23 8 Groups (G) 3 .99 1.28 16 •9 Pre-Post X G 3 .92 2.42 17 10 P-N X G 3 .33 2.09 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .33 2.81* 19 12. 1-0 X G 3 .12 1.03 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .12 .75 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .26 1.12 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .16 1.01 23 16 Subjects 36 .77 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .38 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .16 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .12 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .11 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .16 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .23 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .16 * £ <_ .05 ** £ 1 .01 *** £ 1 .005 Numbers r e f e r to the a p p r o p r i a t e e r r o r term used. For example,*. P o s i t i v e (P) - Negative (N) S i t u a t i o n s were t e s t e d by term 18 or P-N X Subjects. MS has been rounded o f f to the nearest decimal place i n a l l the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s Appendix G,2 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of Loudness of Voice Source df MS F" Err o r term 1 Pre-Post 1 1.67 5.59*!-'- 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e 'Situations (P-N) 1 .36 2.48 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 .10 ".62 19 4 Inside- Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 .'05 \ 2 9 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .15 1.11 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 .86 6.86** 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .03 .'24 23 8 Groups (G) 3 .46 .1.64 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 .16 .54 17 10 P-N X G 3 .20 1.39 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .02 .10 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .08 .46 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .12 .89 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .01 .05 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .26 2.34 23 16 Subjects 36 .28 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .30 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .15 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .16 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .17 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .14 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .13 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .11 * p_ 1 .05 ** P_ 1 -01 *** p_ <_ .005 Numbers r e f e r to appropriate e r r o r term used Appendix G.3 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of Eye Contact Source df MS F E r r o r term 1 Pre-Post 1 13.56 11.48*** 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 .71 3.29 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 .15 1.30 19 4 In s i d e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 .38 1.87 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .02 .08 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 2.94 14.82*** 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .47 3.04 23 8 Groups (G) 3 5.90 2.07 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 .45 .38 17 10 P-N X G 3 ".26 1.20 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .17 1.51 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .19 .95 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .20 1.04 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .07 .37 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .18 1.16 23 16 Subjects 36 2.90 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 1.18 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .22 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .11 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .20 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .20 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .20 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .16 * £ < .05 ** £ <_ .01 *** £ <_ .005 "Numbers r e f e r to appropriate e r r o r term used Appendix G.4 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of A s s e r t i v e Content Source df MS F E r r o r term 1 Pre-Post 1 55.77 56.60*** 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 3.06 6.89** 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 1.32 3.77 19 4 Insid e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 .97 2.82 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .59 2.11 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 3.22 10.62*** 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .00 .01 23 8 Groups (G) 3 10.28 3.79** 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 4.04 4.09** 17 10 P-N X G 3 .91 2.05 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .19 .55 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .19 .55 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .09 .33 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .30 .99 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .14 .43 23 16 Subjects 36 2.71 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .99 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .44 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .35 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .34 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .28 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .30 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .34 * p_ £.05 ** £ 1-01 *** £ <_ .005 Numbers r e f e r to app r o p r i a t e e r r o r term used Appendix G.5 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of Aggressive Content Source df MS F E r r o r term 1 Pre-Post 1 .54 3.77 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 5.31 30.06*** 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 .88 5.02* 19 4 I n s i d e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 .42 4.31* 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .11 1.30 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 .19 1.59 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .84 12.68*** 23 8 Groups (g) 3 .10 .36 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 .17 1.20 17 10 P-N X G 3 .14 .80 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .09 .48 19 12 1-0 X G . 3 .05 .54 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .12 1.40 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .17 1.37 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .05 .81 23 16 Subjects 36 .26 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .14 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .18 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .18 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .10 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36' .08 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .12 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .07 * p_ £ .05 ** p_ 1 .01 *** p_ _ .005 "Numbers r e f e r to appropriate e r r o r term used Appendix G,6 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of the Number of Non-Responses Source df MS F Error term 1 Pre-Post 1 1.80 2.06 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 4.05 6.49 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 1.01 2.02 19 4 In s i d e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 1.80 3.70 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .01 .04 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 1.01 1.62 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .20 .67 23 8 Groups (G) 3 6.37 2.69 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 2.72 3.11 17 10 P-N X G 3 1.49 2.39 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 1.49 2.97 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .06 .12 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .00 .01 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .32 .51 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .37 1.26 23 16 Subjects 36 2.37 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .88 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .62 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .50 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .49 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .30 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .63 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 - .30 * p_ <_ .05 ** p_ <_ .01 *** p_ <_ .005 Numbers r e f e r to app r o p r i a t e e r r o r term used Appendix G.7 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA On the Mean Scores of the Latency of Response (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) Source df MS F Err o r 1 Pre-Post 1 .14 28.30*** 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 .32 2.43 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 .00 .02 19 4 In s i d e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 .00 .03 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .00 .00 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 .08 .44 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .05 .27 23 8 Groups (G) 3 .98 2.03 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 .79 1.62 17 10 P-N X G 3 .50 3.82* 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .20 1.12 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .08 .83 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .12 .70 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .18 1.01 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .21 1.10 23 16 Subj ects 36 .48 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .49 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .13 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .18 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .10 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .17 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .18 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .19 1 term * p_ 1 .05 ** p_ 1 .01 *** p_ 1 .005 "Numbers r e f e r to appropriate e r r o r term used Appendix G«8 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of Loudness of Voice (Transfer Situations) Source df MS F Error 1 Pre-Post 1 .23 .32 17 2 Positive-Negative Situations (P-N)) 1 .01 .07 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 .04 .17 19 4 Inside Prison-Outside Prison Situations (1-0) 1 .48 1.57 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .00 .00 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 .27 1.33 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .33 1.65 23 8 Groups (G) 3 1.27 2.63 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 .61 .87 17 10 P-N X G 3 .09 .65 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .06 .27 19 12 1-0 X G 3 • .20 .85 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 G 3 .07 .53 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .02 .09 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .18 .92 23 16 Subjects 36 .48 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .70 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .13 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .21 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .24 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .14 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .20 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .20 * £ 1 .05 ** £ 1 .01 * * * £ H -005 Numbers r e f e r to appropriate error term used i — 1 OJ Appendix G,9 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of Eye Contact (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) Source df MS F E r r o r term^ 1 .21 12.88*** 17 1 .07 .15 18 1 .04 .12 19 1 .52 1.79 20 1 .05 .19 21 1 .23 1.20 22 1 .29 .91 23 3 7.54 2.87* 16 3 2.43 1.51 17 3 .20 .43 18 3 .08 .24 19 3 .37 1.27 20 3 .13 .46 21 3 .15 .77 22 3 .14 .45 23 36 2.63 36 1.60 36 .46 36 .35 36 .29 36 .28 36 .20 36 .32 1 Pre-Post 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 3 Pre-Post X P-N 4 I n s i d e P r i s o n - O u t s i d e P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 6 P-N X 1-0 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 8 Groups (G) 9 Pre-Post X G 10 P-N X G 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 12 1-0 X G 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 16 Subjects 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 18 P-N X Subjects 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 20 1-0 X Subjects 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 22 P-N X1-0 X Subjects 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects (I-O) * p_ < * * £ < *** p_ < .05 .01 .005 Numbers r e f e r to ap p r o p r i a t e e r r o r term used Appendix G.10 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of A s s e r t i v e Content (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) Source df MS F E r r o r term 1 Pre-Post 1 47.01 30.06*** 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N)' 1 8.23 12.47*** 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 .00 .00 19 4 I n s i d e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 4.67 7.15** 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 3.80 6.15* 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 1.05 2.47 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 6.91 1.34 23 8 Groups (G) 3 7.82 2.59 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 4.38 2.80* 17 10 P-N X G 3 .95 1.45 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 1.21 2.93* 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .28 .43 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .08 .14 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .69 1.61 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .14 .27 23 16 Subjects 36 3.02 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36' 1.56 18 P-N X Subjects 36' .66 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .41 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .65 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .62 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .43 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .52 * p_ 1 .05 ** p_ 1 .01 *** p_ 1 .005 Numbers r e f e r to appropriate e r r o r term used Appendix G . l l 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of Aggressive Content (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) Source df MS F Er r o r term 1 Pre-Post 1 .33 2.31 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 6.91 17.35*** 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 .38 2.74 19 4 Insid e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 .44 3.28 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .11 1.42 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 . 72 6.01* 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 .26 4.65* 23 8 Groups (G) 3 .21 .50 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 .15 1.06 17 10 P-N X G 3 .09 .23 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 .02 .14 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .21 1.59 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .03 .47 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .30 2.50 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .02 .44 23 16 Subjects 36 .43 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 .14 18 P-N X Subjects 36 .40 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 .14 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .13 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects { 36 .07 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .12 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .06 * £ 1 .05 * * £ 1 .01 * * * £ 1 .005 Numbers r e f e r to app r o p r i a t e e r r o r term used Appendix G.12 4 X 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on the Mean Scores of the Number of Non-Responses (Transfer S i t u a t i o n s ) Source df MS F Err o r ti 1 Pre-Post 1 6.90 5.96* 17 2 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e S i t u a t i o n s (P-N) 1 1.95 3.59 18 3 Pre-Post X P-N 1 2.63 5.78* 19 4 Insid e Prison-Outside P r i s o n S i t u a t i o n s (1-0) 1 1.38 3.14 20 5 Pre-Post X 1-0 1 .08 .23 21 6 P-N X 1-0 1 .15 .39 22 7 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 1 1.13 3.31 23 8 Groups (G) 3 2. 70 1.78 16 9 Pre-Post X G 3 .94 .81 17 10 P-N X G 3 1.27 2.33 18 11 Pre-Post X P-N X G 3 ' .46 1.02 19 12 1-0 X G 3 .06 .14 20 13 Pre-Post X 1-0 X G 3 .08 .23 21 14 P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .30 .76 22 15 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X G 3 .66 1.94 23 16 Subjects 36 1.52 17 Pre-Post X Subjects 36 1.16 18 P-N X Subjects: 36 .54 19 Pre-Post X P-N X Subjects 36 '.45 20 1-0 X Subjects 36 .44 21 Pre-Post X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .34 22 P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .40 23 Pre-Post X P-N X 1-0 X Subjects 36 .34 1 * p_ < .05 ** p_ _ .01 *** p_ <_ .005 "Numbers r e f e r to appropriate e r r o r term used 139 Appendix H.l In v i v o A s s e r t i v e n e s s ( s t a f f observation at post treatment) Jesness Behavior C h e c k l i s t "Assertiveness Source df MS F Groups 3 26.41 1.00 E r r o r 36 26.29 * p_ < .05 ** p_ <i .01 Anger C o n t r o l Source df MS F_ Groups 3 3.76 .91 E r r o r 36 4.10 * £ < .05 ** £ < .01 Appendix H.2 In v i v o A s s e r t i v e n e s s ( s t a f f observation a t one month follow-up) Jesness Behavior C h e c k l i s t -Assertiveness Source df MS F _ Groups 3 4.06 .10 E r r o r 36 39.12 * p_ < .05 ** p_ <~ .01 Anger C o n t r o l Source df MS F Groups 3 3,96 1.07 E r r o r 36 3,72 * £ < .05 ** p_ < .01 Appendix i . l 4 X 2 ANOVA on Rathus Assertive Inventory Source df MS F Error term^ 1 Pre-Post 1 838.51 10.96** 5 2 Groups 3 352.21 .59 4 3 Pre-Post X Groups 3 179.38 2.35 5 4 Subjects 36 600.20 7.85 5 5 Error 36 76.50 * p_ 1 .05 ** p_ 1 .01 Numbers refer to appropriate error term used Appendix , 1 , 2 4 X 2 ANOVA on Buss-Durkee F u l l Score Source df MS F E r r o r term 1 P r e - P o s t 1 26.45 .14 5 2 Groups 3 3865.23 1.44 4 3 P r e - P o s t X Groups 3 19.68 .10 5 4 S u b j e c t s 36 2682.98 13.86 5 5 E r r o r 36 193.57 * p_ < .05 ** p_ < .01 Numbers r e f e r to the a p p r o p r i a t e e r r o r term used Appendix i t 3 4 X 2 ANOVA on Buss-Durkee Verbal Assault Scale Source df MS F Error tenJ 1 Pre-Post 1 .61 .06 5 2 Groups 3 159.31 3.09* 4 3 Pre-Post X Groups 3 5.08 .54 5 4 Subjects 36 51.56 5.43 5 5 Error 36 9.49 *£ ±.05 ** p_ < . 01 Numbers refer to the appropriate error term used Appendix 1,4 4 X 2 ANOVA on Temple Fear Survey F u l l Score Source df MS F E r r o r t e r r J 1 P r e - P o s t 1 1584.20 2.21 5 2 Groups 3 16918.23 2.39 4 3 P r e - P o s t X Groups 3 '476.50 .66 5 4 S u b j e c t s 36 7093.38 9.89 5 5 E r r o r 36 717.01 * 2. - - 0 5 * * £ 1.01 Numbers r e f e r to the a p p r o p r i a t e e r r o r term used Appendix 1.5 4 X 2 ANOVA on Temple Fear Survey Social Competence Scale Source df MS " F Error term^ 1 Pre-Post 1 2.45 ' .29 5 2 Groups 3 53.15 .82 4 3 Pre-Post X Groups 3 9.68 1.14 5 4 Subjects 36 64.92 7.65 5 5 Error 36 8.49 * £ 1 .05 • ** p_ 1 .01 Numbers refer to the appropriate error term used Appendix J Description of Assertive Content and Aggressive Content Assertive Content Aggressive Content active abrasive adequate argumentative appreciating arrogant appropriate b e l l i g e r e n t caring blaming confident " b l o o d ' t h i r s t y " d i r e c t "brassy" expressive caustic f l e x i b l e demanding independent denigrating responsible d i s d a i n f u l self-enhancing disparaging s e l f - r e l i a n t domineering spontaneous unfriendly s t r a i g h t forward v i n d i c t i v e supportive 147 Appendix K . l Means and Standard Deviations of Behavioural Measures ( P r e t e s t ) Placebo Test-Retest Modeling Behaviour Rehearsal C o n t r o l Control X SD X SD X SD X SD Behavioural Test of Assertiveness Latency of Response .42 .56 .32 .54 .78 .84 .38 .63 Loudness of Voice 1.76 .41 1.78 .61 1.81 .39 1.93 .47 Eye Contact 1. 77 .82 1.88 .81 1.30 .70 1.83 . 70 A s s e r t i v e Content 1.83 .82 1.82 .81 1.47 .69 2.08 .97 Aggressive Content .18 .44 .30 .66 .11 .24 .21 .51 Responsiveness . 725 . 716 .80 1.07 .90 1.17 .45 .85 148 Appendix K.2 Means and Standard Deviations of Behaviour Measures ( P o s t t e s t ) Behaviour Placebo Test-Retest Rehearsal C o n t r o l C o n t r o l X SD X SD X SD X SD Behavioural Test of Assertiveness Latency of Response .04 .13 .04 .18 .09 .17 .18 .50 Loudness of Voice 1.94 .31 2.03 .22 1.84 .58 2.06 .16 Eye Contact 1.96 .94 2.40 .61 1. 77 .73 2.30 .92 A s s e r t i v e Content 2.68 1.10 3.3 .58 1.95 .91 2.62 .78 Aggressive Content .15 .28 .11 .33 .13 .35 .10 .19 Responsiveness .58 .81 .18 .45 1.18 1.13 .35 .48 Behavioural Test of Transfer Latency of Response .08 .24 .06 .20 .08 .24 .03 .11 Loudness of Voice 1.48 .85 1.98 .24 1. 76 .62 1.90 .36 Eye Contact 1. 79 1.23 2.50 .63 1.91 .97 2.6 .79 A s s e r t i v e Content 2.21 1.50 3.25 .78 2.20 1.12 2.59 1.07 Aggressive Content .21 .54 .43 .34 .08 .34 .11 .35 Responsiveness .63 .81 .20 .41 .63 .66 .25 .44 Jesness Assertiveness 33.00 3.10 31.30 5.29 34.00 6.13 30.40 5.48 Anger Control 8.90 1.10 8.80 2.44 10.09 2.13 9.59 2.17 Jesness (Follow-up) i Assertiveness 35.79 8.99 36.79 5.99 36.89 8.29 35.69 3.97 Anger Control 9. 70 1.76 8.59 1.83 10.00 2.62 9.79 1.22 149 Appendix K.3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of Behaviour Measures VI V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 Latency of Response (VI) 1.00 Loudness of Voice (V2) .11 1.00 Eye Contact (V3) .17 .62 1.00 A s s e r t i v e Content (V4) .03 .71 .71 1.00 Aggressive Content (V5) .29 .27 .06 .02 1.00 Responsiveness (V6) -.09 -.85 -.62 -.13 -.27 1.00 Jesness Assertiveness (V7' .02 .04 .00 .03 -.10 .00 1.00 The c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x was derived from the 40 subjects scores on the p r e t e s t s (except Jesness A s s e r t i v e n e s s s c a l e which was administered at p o s t t e s t i n g time). 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094031/manifest

Comment

Related Items