Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A construct validation study : verbal, behavioral and personality components of assertion and aggression MacIsaac, Helen Marian 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 M23_5.pdf [ 12.69MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094833.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094833-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094833-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094833-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094833-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094833-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094833-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094833-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094833.ris

Full Text

A C O N S T R U C T V A L I D A T I O N S T U D Y : V E R B A L , B E H A V I O R A L A N D P E R S O N A L I T Y C O M P O N E N T S O F A S S E R T I O N A N D A G G R E S S I O N H E L E N M A R I A N M A C I S A A C B . A . , 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 , 1973 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F A R T S i n >• T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y W e a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T H E 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 M a y , 1979 0 H e l e n M a r i a n M a c l s a a c , 1979 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers ity of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shal l make i t f ree ly avai lable for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publ icat ion of th i s thesis for f inanc ia l gain shal l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology The Univers ity of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date June 8, 1979 A B S T R A C T W i t h i n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l l i t e r a t u r e , t h e r e i s a l a c k o f a g r e e m e n t a m o n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s a s t o h o w a s s e r t i o n s h o u l d b e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d , d e f i n e d , m e a s u r e d , a n d a s t o t h e a c t u a l c o m p o n e n t s c o m p r i s i n g a s s e r t i o n . T h e s a m e i s t r u e f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t o f a g g r e s s i o n . T h i s s t u d y a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e c o n s t r u c t c l a r i f i c a t i o n . T h e f i r s t o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s t u d y w a s t o i d e n t i f y t h e v e r b a l , b e h a v i o r a l a n d p e r s o n a l i t y c o m p o n e n t s o f e a c h h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t . T o a d d r e s s t h i s , a s a m p l e o f C a n a d i a n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s w a s f i r s t i d e n t i -f i e d , t h e n s u r v e y e d . A s c a l e w a s c o n s t r u c t e d w h i c h c o n t a i n e d d e s c r i p t o r s i n -t e n d e d t o r e p r e s e n t a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n , p r e s e n t e d w i t h -o u t s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t s . T h e f i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h e s c a l e c o n -s i s t e d o f 1 0 4 - i t e m s c l u s t e r e d i n f o u r f a c e t s : V e r b a l B e h a v i o r B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s a n d V e r b a l S t a t e -m e n t s . S e v e r a l u n a s s e r t i v e i t e m s w e r e a d d e d t o e a c h f a c e t t o s e r v e a s m a r k e r s . T w o h u n d r e d a n d n i n e t y - t h r e e a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s w e r e s e n t t h e f i n a l s c a l e , a n d a s k e d t o j u d g e e a c h d e s c r i p t o r a s t o i t s d e g r e e o f c o n s t r u c t r e p r e -s e n t a t i o n . T h e s e c o n d o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t u d y w a s t o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c o f c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y f o r a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n . V a l i d i t y e v i d e n c e f o r t h e s c a l e a n d t h e c o n s t r u c t s w a s p r o v i d e d f r o m s e v e r a l s o u r c e s . F i r s t , i t e m s f o r t h e s c a l e w e r e d e r i v e d f r o m a r e v i e w o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l l i t e r a t u r e o n a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n , p r o v i d i n g n e c e s s a r y c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y . S e c o n d , a g r o u p o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s k n o w l -e d g e a b l e o f t h e c o n s t r u c t s , j u d g e d e a c h s c a l e i t e m a s t o i t s d e g r e e o f c o n s t r u c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . S t r o n g e v i d e n c e o f c o n -2 s t r u c t v a l i d i t y w a s p r o v i d e d b y H o t e l l i n g s T s t a t i s t i c s , w h i c h s h o w e d t h a t 93 o f 98 i t e m s f u n c t i o n e d a s e x p e c t e d a n d w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . T h e r e s u l t s o f m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g c o n f i r m e d t h a t i t e m s w h i c h d i f f e r -e n t i a t e d a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n c o u l d a l s o h e m e a n i n g f u l l y r e p r e s e n t e d s p a t i a l l y . T h e t h i r d o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s t u d y w a s t o c o n t r i b u t e i n -f o r m a t i o n a s t o t h e n a t u r e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a s s e r t i o n 2 a n d a g g r e s s i o n . T h e H o t e l l i n g s T a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s p e r c e i v e d t h e c o m p o n e n t s c o m p r i s i n g a s s e r -t i o n v e r y d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m t h o s e c o n s t i t u t i n g a g g r e s s i o n . T h a t t h e i t e m s r e p r e s e n t i n g e a c h c o n s t r u c t c l u s t e r e d i n m e a n i n g f u l g r o u p s w i t h i n e a c h f a c e t l e a d s t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t s w e r e p e r c e i v e d a s b e i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m e a c h o t h e r . T h e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t e d t h a t b o t h c o n s t r u c t s a r e s e e n a s e n c o m p a s s i n g a v a r i e t y o f v e r b a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l c o m -p o n e n t s , a s w e l l a s a s s o c i a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . T h e c o n -s t r u c t s a r e n o t e n t i r e l y i n d e p e n d e n t , h o w e v e r , a s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n d i m e n s i o n s d e r i v e d f r o m m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g . The f o u r t h o b j e c t i v e of the study concerned the v a l i d a -t i o n of the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s proposed f o r each con-s t r u c t . The obtained r e s u l t s p r o v i d e d s t r o n g v a l i d i t y e v i -dence f o r these d e f i n i t i o n s . The f i f t h o b j e c t i v e concerned the development of a s e l f -r e p o r t s c a l e based on those components which were shown to e m p i r i c a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h the c o n s t r u c t s . A s t a b l e and broad base f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g such an instrument was p r o v i d e d . S u p e r v i s o r V T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S C H A P T E R P a g e I T H E P R O B L E M A N D R E L A T E D R E S E A R C H 1 A s s e r t i o n 3 T h e o r i e s , M o d e l s a n d D e f i n i t i o n s 3 C o m p o n e n t s o f A s s e r t i o n 13 M e a s u r e m e n t o f A s s e r t i o n 16 G l o b a l C l i n i c a l I m p r e s s i o n 17 S e l f - R e p o r t I n v e n t o r i e s 17 B e h a v i o r a l M e a s u r e s o f A s s e r t i o n 36 N o n v e r b a l C o m p o n e n t s o f A s s e r t i o n . . 36 V e r b a l A n a l y s i s 37 P h y s i o l o g i c a l M e a s u r e s 38 G e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f A s s e r t i v e R e s p o n s e s . . . . 39 P e r s o n a l i t y M e a s u r e s 4-1 A g g r e s s i o n 43 T h e o r i e s , M o d e l s a n d D e f i n i t i o n s 43 M e a s u r e m e n t o f A g g r e s s i o n 50 P r o j e c t i v e T e c h n i q u e s 50 S e l f - R e p o r t I n v e n t o r i e s 51 B e h a v i o r a l M e a s u r e s o f A g g r e s s i o n 55 F i e l d S t u d i e s 58 C o n c l u s i o n 58 I I P U R P O S E O F T H E S T U D Y 59 R a t i o n a l e f o r t h e S t u d y 59 P u r p o s e o f t h e S t u d y 65 O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e S t u d y 66 O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n s o f T e r m s 66 v i C H A P T E R P a g e I I I P R O C E D U R E S 69 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e P o p u l a t i o n o f A s s e r t i v e n e s s T r a i n e r s / R e s e a r c h e r s 69 S t a g e 1 70 S t a g e 2 73 S t a g e 3 75 S t a g e k 75 S t a g e 5 76 S t a g e 6 78 S t a g e 7 78 S u m m a r y o f P o p u l a t i o n I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 80 F i n a l S a m p l e 80 S c a l e C o n s t r u c t i o n 83 P i l o t S c a l e 83 I t e m s 83 R e s p o n s e M o d e 85 P i l o t S c a l e P r e - t e s t 89 R e s u l t s o f P r e - t e s t 90 F i n a l S c a l e 91 D a t a A n a l y s e s 96 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A n a l y s e s 96 P o p u l a t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 96 T h e S a m p l e 97 S c a l e A n a l y s e s 97 O r d e r E f f e c t s 97 H o t e l l i n g s T 2 98 R e l i a b i l i t y 98 M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g 99 I V A N A L Y S E S A N D R E S U L T S 101 T h e P o p u l a t i o n a n d t h e S a m p l e . . . 102 S c a l e s M a i l e d a n d R e t u r n R a t e 102 v i i C H A P T E R P a g e I V B i o d e m o g r a p h i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e I d e n t i f i e d P o p u l a t i o n 103 A s s e r t i v e n e s s T r a i n e r s 106 R e s e a r c h 107 S u m m a r y 107 C o m p a r i s o n o f S a m p l e R e s p o n d e n t s a n d N o n -r e s p o n d e n t s o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e V a r i a b l e s . . . 108 S c a l e A n a l y s e s 110 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e 110 V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t 1 1 4 B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t 1 1 4 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s F a c e t 116 V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s F a c e t 119 S u m m a r y 119 1 I t e m a n d S c a l e E f f e c t s 120 V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t 122 B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t . . . . . . . . . . . 122 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s F a c e t 127 V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s F a c e t 127 R e l i a b i l i t y E s t i m a t e s 132 A s s e r t i o n S u b s c a l e s / A s s e r t i o n R a t i n g s 132 A g g r e s s i o n S u b s c a l e s / A g g r e s s i o n R a t i n g s 134 S u m m a r y 136 M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g . . . 137 V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t 138 B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t 143 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s F a c e t 147 V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s F a c e t 150 S u m m a r y 154 v i i i CHAPTER Page V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 155 Summary of Procedures 155 Summary of Results 156 Conclusions 158 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 161 Recommendations f o r Future Research 162 BIBLIOGRAPHY 165 APPENDIX A I n i t i a l L e t t e r to Key Informants 176 B Follow-up L e t t e r to Key Informants who d i d not Reply to the I n i t i a l L e t t e r 178 C Useable Return Rate from I n i t i a l Key Informant L e t t e r by Sample Source 180 D V e r i f i c a t i o n L e t t e r Sent to Assertiveness Trainers/Researchers I d e n t i f i e d by Key Informants 184 E Demographic Information Sheet Sent to I n d i v i d u a l s I d e n t i f i e d by Key Informants as Assertiveness Trainers/Researchers to v e r i f y t h e i r Involvement , 186 F Follow-up L e t t e r of I n d i v i d u a l s who d i d not Complete the Demographic Information Sheet 189 G P i l o t Scale -- Pretested on Eleven L o c a l Assertiveness T r a i n e r s 191 H Means and Standard Deviations f o r P i l o t Scale Items f o r Assertiveness Trainers P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the P r e - t e s t 205 I F i n a l Scale -- Sent to Assertiveness Trainers/Researchers 220 J Biodemographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the I d e n t i f i e d P o p u l a t i o n 238 K Results of C r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s Between Respondents and Nonrespondents to Scale on Information Sheet V a r i a b l e s .' 248 i x A P P E N D I X P a g e L R e p e a t e d M e a s u r e s A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r E a c h S c a l e F a c e t 264 M F i n a l S c a l e D a t a - - M e a n , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n , C o r r e l a t i o n w i t h S u b s c a l e a n d T o t a l S c a l e f o r E a c h I t e m H y p o t h e s i z e d t o R e p r e s e n t A s s e r t i o n a n d R a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n A c r o s s t h e F o u r S c a l e F a c e t s 269 N F i n a l S c a l e D a t a - - M e a n , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n , C o r r e l a t i o n w i t h S u b s c a l e a n d T o t a l S c a l e f o r E a c h I t e m H y p o t h e s i z e d t o R e p r e s e n t A g g r e s s i o n a n d R a t e d o n A g g r e s s i o n A c r o s s t h e F o u r S c a l e F a c e t s 274 0 I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s A c r o s s t h e F o u r S c a l e F a c e t s 279 P S c a t t e r D i a g r a m s : \o f A s s e r t i o n - A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n - A g g r e s s i o n I t e m V a l u e s o n D i m e n s i o n s A c r o s s t h e F o u r S c a l e F a c e t s 288 Q S c a t t e r g r a m S u m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s f o r E a c h S c a l e F a c e t 294 X L I S T O F T A B L E S P a g e T a b l e 1 : C o m p o s i t i o n o f C a n a d i a n K e y I n f o r m a n t S a m p l e 74 T a b l e 2: N u m b e r o f R e t u r n s a n d P e r c e n t a g e o f U s e a b l e R e t u r n s b y P r o v i n c e i n R e s p o n s e t o t h e I n i t i a l K e y I n f o r m a n t L e t t e r , 77 T a b l e 3: N u m b e r o f R e t u r n s a n d P e r c e n t a g e o f U s e a b l e R e t u r n s b y P r o v i n c e i n R e s p o n s e t o D e m o g r a p h i c I n f o r m a -t i o n S h e e t 79 T a b l e 4 : N u m b e r o f I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n E a c h P r o v i n c e w h o w e r e s e n t F i n a l D a t a 8 1 T a b l e 5: P i l o t S c a l e C o m p o s i t i o n 86 T a b l e 6: F i n a l S c a l e C o m p o s i t i o n 94 T a b l e 7: R e t u r n s b y P r o v i n c e f o r P r e - a n d P o s t -V e r i f i c a t i o n G r o u p s 1 0 4 T a b l e 8: S u m m a r y o f B i o d e m o g r a p h i c D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n S a m p l e R e s p o n d e n t s a n d N o n r e s p o n d e n t s 109 T a b l e 9: H o t e l l i n g s T 2 a n d F ' s f o r E a c h S c a l e F a c e t 121 T a b l e 10: M e a n s , C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s a n d R a n k e d M e a n D i f f e r e n c e s o f I t e m s w i t h i n V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t 123 T a b l e 11: M e a n s , C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s a n d R a n k e d M e a n D i f f e r e n c e s o f I t e m s w i t h i n t h e B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t 125 T a b l e 12: M e a n s , C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s a n d R a n k e d M e a n D i f f e r e n c e s o f I t e m s w i t h i n t h e P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t F a c e t 128 T a b l e 13: M e a n s , C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s a n d R a n k e d M e a n D i f f e r e n c e s o f I t e m s w i t h i n t h e V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s F a c e t 130 x i P a g e T a b l e 1 4 : A s s e r t i o n S u b s c a l e R e l i a b i l i t y a n d S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f M e a s u r e m e n t 1 3 3 T a b l e 1 5 : A g g r e s s i o n S u b s c a l e R e l i a b i l i t i e s a n d S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f M e a s u r e m e n t 1 3 5 T a b l e 1 6 : S u m m a r y T a b l e f o r M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g : L i n e a r S o l u t i o n s 1 3 9 x i i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: A s s e r t i o n , nonassertion and aggression (Dawley & Wenrich, 1976, p.19) 6 Figure 2: Nonassertive, aggressive and a s s e r t i v e behavior ( A l b e r t i & Emmons, 1970, p.11) 7 Figure 3: A comparison of pa s s i v e , a s s e r t i v e and aggressive behavior (Jakubowski-Spector, c i t e d i n Olson, 1976, p.94) 8 Figure 4: Response modes f o r p i l o t study 87 Figure 5: Verbal behavior f a c e t : proportions of variance accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 113 Figure 6: B e h a v i o r a l components f a c e t : proportions of variance accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 115 Figure 7: P e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s f a c e t : proportions of variance accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n 117 Figure 8: Verbal statement f a c e t : proportions of variance accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 118 Figure 9: S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n dimension and aggression dimension 1: v e r b a l behavior f a c e t 141 Figure 10: S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n dimension and aggression dimension 1: b e h a v o r i a l components f a c e t 145 Figure 11: S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n dimension and aggression dimension 1: person-a l i t y t r a i t s f a c e t 148 Figure 12: S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n and aggression dimensions: v e r b a l statements f a c e t 152 A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S T h e w r i t e r w o u l d l i k e t o e x t e n d h e r s i n c e r e t h a n k s a n d a p p r e c i a t i o n t o : D r . R o b e r t C o n r y - w h o c o n t r i b u t e d h i s e x p e r t i s e i n s t a t i s t i c s , r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d e d i t i n g ; w h o i n t r o d u c e d m e t o t h e w o r l d o f " p a i r e d c o m p a r i s o n s " d a t a ; w h o s h a r e d m y e x c i t e m e n t a n d o f f e r e d c o n t i n u e d s u p p o r t i n m a n y w a y s t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o j e c t . D r . T o d d R o g e r s - w h o i n t r o d u c e d m e t o t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s o f s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e s ; w h o s e s t a t i s t i c a l a n d m e a s u r e -m e n t e x p e r t i s e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s u c c e s s o f t h i s p r o j e c t ; a n d w h o o f f e r e d e n c o u r a g e m e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o j e c t . D r . S h a r o n K a h n - w h o h e l p e d t o b r i n g t h e i n i t i a l i d e a f o r t h i s p r o j e c t i n t o f o c u s ; w h o c o n t r i b u t e d h e r e x p e r t i s e o n t h e t o p i c ; a n d w h o p r o v i d e d e n c o u r a g e m e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o j e c t . B a r r y - w h o s e l o v e a n d s u p p o r t t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o j e c t c a n -n o t b e r e a d i l y e x p r e s s e d i n w o r d s , a n d w h o s u c c e s s -f u l l y l e a r n e d t o l i v e w i t h a n " a s s e r t i v e / a g g r e s s i v e c o m p u t e r g r e e n s c r e e n . " G a r y H o l m e s - w h o c o n t r i b u t e d h i s e x p e r t i s e i n g r a p h i c d e s i g n s t o p r o d u c e F i g u r e s 5 - 8 i n t e x t . B e r n i c e G i l f o y - w h o c a r e f u l l y a n d e f f i c i e n t l y t y p e d t h i s t h e s i s . A p p r e c i a t i o n i s o f f e r e d t o m y f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s w h o a s s i s t e d i n m a n y w a y s " b e h i n d a n d o n t h e s c e n e , " a n d w h o c a r e d e n o u g h t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e l i f e o f a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t . S i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e i s e x t e n d e d t o t h e a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n -e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s w h o r e c o g n i z e d t h e v a l u e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , a n d m a d e t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s p r o j e c t p o s s i b l e b y t h e i r i n t e r e s t a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 1 C H A P T E R I T H E P R O B L E M A N D R E L A T E D R E S E A R C H A r e c e n t a n d r a p i d l y e x p a n d i n g a r e a i n t h e f i e l d o f " b e -h a v i o r a l p s y c h o l o g y i s t h e s t u d y o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g t e c h n i q u e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o a p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t , t h e r e a p p e a r s t o h e a n i n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c d e m a n d a s e v i d e n c e d "by t h e a b u n d a n c e o f s e l f - h e l p b o o k s a v a i l a b l e o n t h e t o p i c , a n d t h e n u m b e r o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s w o r k s h o p s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d a -c r o s s C a n a d a a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e p e r v a -s i v e c u l t u r a l c h a n g e s e m p h a s i z i n g s e l f - g r o w t h , a n d r e j e c t i o n o f t r a d i t i o n a l s e x r o l e s t e r e o t y p i n g a s r e f l e c t e d b y t h e W o m e n ' s L i b e r a t i o n , G a y L i b e r a t i o n a n d E q u a l R i g h t s M o v e m e n t s h a v e d o n e m u c h t o p o p u l a r i z e b o t h t h e c o n s t r u c t o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g ( F l o w e r s , C o o p e r & W h i t e l e y , 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e s e r i o u s s t u d y o f a s s e r t i o n h a s b e e n ( a n d i s ) h a m p e r -e d b y s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t a n d r e l a t e d f a c t o r s . A s a n i n t e r e s t i n a s s e r t i o n f i r s t g r e w f r o m a t h e r a p e u t i c v i e w p o i n t , t h e e m p h a s i s i n r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s t h e i n v e s t i g a -t i o n o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g t e c h n i q u e s r a t h e r t h a n o n w h a t i s b e i n g m e a s u r e d — a s s e r t i o n . A t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , t h e r e i s a l a c k o f a g r e e m e n t a m o n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s a s t o h o w a s s e r t i o n s h o u l d b e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a n d d e f i n e d , w h a t t h e s p e c i f i c c o m -p o n e n t s c o m p r i s i n g a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e a r e , a n d h o w i t 2 s h o u l d b e m e a s u r e d . T h e s a m e i s t r u e f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t o f a g g r e s s i o n . A n a d d i t i o n a l r e l a t e d p r o b l e m o f g r e a t c o n c e r n t o b o t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s a n d t h e p u b l i c i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n : h o w d o t h e y d i f f e r ? T h e r e i s a g r o w i n g t e n d e n c y t o s e e a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g a s " f o s t e r i n g a b r a -s i v e , o b n o x i o u s o r o t h e r w i s e a g g r e s s i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v -i o r " ( H a r r i s , c i t e d i n H o l l a n d s w o r t h , 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e t e r m s a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n h a v e o f t e n b e e n u s e d s y n o n o m o u s l y ( B a c h & G o l d b e r g , 197^) . S e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s i n g f r o m t h i s b e c o m e a p p a r e n t . F i r s t l y , p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g g r o u p s m a y b e d i s c r e d i t e d b y t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e y a r e r e a l l y t e a c h i n g a n d s a n c t i o n i n g a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r . S e c -o n d l y , r e c e n t r e s e a r c h h a s s h o w n t h a t m a n y p e o p l e h a v e d i f f i -c u l t y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g b e t w e e n a s s e r t i v e a n d a g g r e s s i v e r e s p o n s e s ( L a n g e , R i m m & L o x l e y , 1 9 7 5 ) ' I f a s s e r t i o n i s v i e w e d b y t h e p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t a s e q u i v a l e n t t o a g g r e s s i o n , t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e s o r w i l l i n g n e s s t o l e a r n t h e m m a y b e i n h i b i t e d . T h u s , t h e m o r e c l o s e l y a s s e r t i o n i s l i n k e d t o a g g r e s s i o n , t h e m o r e l i k e l y a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e m a y b e v i e w e d a s u n r e a s o n a b l e a n d t h e r e f o r e r e j e c t e d b y t h e i n d i v i d -u a l o r p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y w a s t o i d e n t i f y t h e s p e c i f i c v e r -b a l , b e h a v i o r a l a n d p e r s o n a l i t y c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d agf-r g r e s s i o n i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e c o n s t r u c t c l a r i f i c a t i o n . T h e r e -m a i n d e r o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s d e v o t e d t o a c r i t i c a l r e v i e w o f t h e r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e on a s s e r t i o n and aggression. For the pur-pose of c l a r i t y , each construct w i l l be reviewed s e p a r a t e l y . ASSERTION  Theories, Models and D e f i n i t i o n s H i s t o r i c a l l y , a s sertiveness t r a i n i n g (AT) grew from the r e c o g n i t i o n of a need to t r e a t s o c i a l i n h i b i t i o n and/or anx-i e t y . The genesis of a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g began w i t h S a l t e r (19^9, pp.99-101) who defined s i x " e x c i t a t o r y " behaviors: the use of " f e e l i n g t a l k , " " f a c i a l t a l k , " the a b i l i t y to make "con t r a d i c t and attack statements," the frequent use of " I " s t a t e -ments, the a b i l i t y to l i v e f o r the present and be spontaneous, and the expression of agreement when p r a i s e d . These " e x c i t a -t o r y responses" were seen as incompatible w i t h " i n h i b i t o r y responses" according to h i s adaptation of the P a v l o v i a n l e a r n -i n g model. S a l t e r used these " r u l e s " to t r e a t a wide v a r i e t y of c l i n i c a l symptoms. Whereas S a l t e r a p p l i e d these " r u l e s " to almost a l l people i n treatment, Wolpe (1958, p.114) considered a s s e r t i o n to be the outward expression of p r a c t i c a l l y a l l f e e l i n g s other than a n x i e t y . While he f e l t t h a t a s s e r t i o n was more or l e s s aggres s i v e behavior, i t also included the expression of f r i e n d l y , a f f e c t i o n a t e and other nonanxious f e e l i n g s . Wolpe t h e o r i z e d that f e a r of s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s or c o n f l i c t s could be reduced by teaching the i n d i v i d u a l to act a s s e r t i v e l y . He suggested a p e r s o n c o u l d n o t "be b o t h a n x i o u s a n d a s s e r t i v e a t t h e s a m e t i m e a s t h e y w e r e i n c o m p a t i b l e r e s p o n s e s : I f a r e s p o n s e a n t a g o n i s t i c t o a n x i e t y c a n b e m a d e t o o c c u r i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f a n x i e t y e v o k i n g s t i m -u l i s o t h a t i t i s a c c o m p a n i e d b y a c o m p l e t e o r p a r t i a l r e p r e s s i o n o f t h e a n x i e t y r e s p o n s e s , t h e b o n d b e t w e e n t h e s e s t i m u l i a n d t h e a n x i e t y r e -s p o n s e s w i l l b e w e a k e n e d ( p .71). W o l p e f o u n d S a l t e r ' s t e c h n i q u e s t o b e o f v a l u e o n l y i n a s s i s t i n g c l i e n t s t o o v e r c o m e m a l a d a p t i v e a n x i e t y . I n a l a t e r w o r k ( W o l p e & L a z a r u s , 1966, p.39) a s s e r t i o n w a s d e f i n e d a s " a l l s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e e x p r e s s i o n s o f r i g h t s a n d f e e l i n g s . " A l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r s d i d n o t p r o v i d e c r i t e r i a f o r a s s e s s i n g s o c i a l a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f a s s e r t i o n , t h e y o f f e r s e v e r a l e x a m p l e s o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r : a p o l i t e r e f u s a l t o a n u n r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t ; e x p r e s s i o n s o f p r a i s e , e n d e a r m e n t , a p p r e c i a t i o n o r r e s p e c t ; a n d e x c l a m a t i o n s o f j o y , i r r i t a t i o n o r d i s g u s t . A s i d e f r o m t h e f o r m a l t h e o r e t i c a l w o r k b y S a l t e r a n d W o l p e l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n p a i d t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f d e v e l o p -i n g a n a d e q u a t e t h e o r e t i c a l o r c o n c e p t u a l b a s i s f o r t h e c o n -s t r u c t o f a s s e r t i o n . T h e m a j o r i t y o f r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e f o c u s e s o n a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g t e c h n i q u e s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e a c t u a l b e h a v i o r s c o m p r i s i n g a s s e r t i o n . I n f o r m a t i o n o n ' c o m p o n -e n t s m u s t o f t e n b e ' e x t r a c t e d f r o m t h e s e s o u r c e s . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s , R a t h u s (1975) h a s a r g u e d " t h e r e i s n o n e e d t o s e e A T a s b e i n g r o o t e d t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l o f p e r s o n a l i t y o r p s y c h o t h e r a p y " ( p .19). A l t h o u g h t h i s may be, there i s , however, a need to devote more a t t e n t i o n to adequate c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t . For many reasons, d e f i n i t i o n of a s s e r t i o n i s a d i f f i c u l t t a s k . Some r e s e a r c h e r s equate a s s e r t i o n w i t h a g g r e s s i o n , or i d e n t i f y i t as a component of ag g r e s s i o n ; others c o n s i d e r the two c o n s t r u c t s to be independent and u n r e l a t e d . C o n t r i b u t i n g to the c o n f u s i o n i s whether or not a s s e r t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d i n terms of a c t u a l b e h a v i o r , consequences of behavior, emotional concomitants, or s o c i a l judgments of a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s . Dawley and Wenrich (1976) c o n s i d e r a s s e r t i o n to be an adaptive behavior because i t "represents a balance between the i n d i v i d u a l ' s needs and s o c i e t y ' s demands; i t i s f u n c t i o n a l and e f f e c t i v e i n a g i v e n context and does not r e s u l t i n d i s c o m f o r t to the i n d i v i d u a l or to others, and i s i n harmony w i t h s o c i -e ty's s t r u c t u r e " (p.1 5 ) . On the other hand, n o n a s s e r t i o n ( i . e . p a s s i v i t y and/or aggression) i s viewed as unadaptive be-cause i t i s "counter to the needs and goals of the i n d i v i d u a l and those of the s o c i e t y ; i t i s d y s f u n c t i o n a l and i n e f f e c t i v e i n a g i v e n context, causes d i s c o m f o r t and even d i s t r e s s to the i n d i v i d u a l and o f t e n to others and may be v e r y d i s r u p t i v e to the s o c i e t y ' s s t r u c t u r e " (p.1 5 ) . Dawley and Wenrich's model may be r e p r e s e n t e d schematic-a l l y as f o l l o w s : S i t u a t i o n B e h a v i o r a l R e s p o n s e O u t c o m e s T y p i c a l i n t e r -p e r s o n a l s i t u a -t i o n c a l l i n g f o r a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e s e l f - d e n i a l , w i t h d r a w -a l , f e e l i n g s o f i n -a d e q u a c y , h e l p l e s s n e s s a n x i e t y , l a c k o f s p o n t a n e i t y , p e n t - u p n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s f e e l i n g s o f a d e q u a c y , m a s t e r y o f e n v i r o n -m e n t , p o s i t i v e f e e l -i n g s t o w a r d s s e l f a n d o t h e r s , s p o n t a n e i t y , s m o o t h 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 g u i l t , r e m o r s e , f e a r o f c o n s e q u e n c e s , a n x -i e t y , h y p e r t e n s i o n , w i t h d r a w a l , a l i e n a t i o n l a c k o f m e a n i n g f u l r e -l a t i o n s h i p s F i g u r e 1. A s s e r t i o n , n o n a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n ( D a w l e y & W e n r i c h , 1976, p.19) A l b e r t i a n d E m m o n s (1970) v i e w e d a s s e r t i o n a s " " b e h a v i o r w h i c h e n a b l e s a p e r s o n t o a c t i n h i s o w n b e s t i n t e r e s t s , t o s t a n d u p f o r h i m s e l f w i t h o u t u n d u e a n x i e t y , t o e x e r c i s e h i s o w n r i g h t s w i t h o u t d e n y i n g t h e r i g h t s o f o t h e r s " ( p . 2 ) . T h e y s a w t h i s t y p e o f p e r s o n a s . b e i n g c o n f i d e n t i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , a b l e t o s p o n t a n e o u s l y e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s a n d e m o t i o n s a n d a s h i g h l y r e g a r d e d b y o t h e r s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e y f o c u s e d o n t h e c o n c e p t s o f " g l o b a l " a n d " s i t u a t i o n a l " a s s e r t i v e n e s s , i m p l y i n g t r a i t a n d s t a t e p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n s . T h e i r m o d e l r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f b e h a v i n g i n c e r t a i n w a y s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 2. N O N A S S E R T I V E B E H A V I O R A G G R E S S I V E B E H A V I O R A S S E R T I V E B E H A V I O R A s A c t o r S e l f - d e n y i n g I n h i b i t e d H u r t , A n x i o u s A l l o w s o t h e r s t o c h o o s e f o r h i m D o e s n o t a c h i e v e d e s i r e d g o a l A s A c t o r S e l f - e n h a n c i n g a t e x p e n s e o f a n o t h e r E x p r e s s i v e D e p r e c i a t e s o t h e r s C h o o s e s f o r o t h e r s A c h i e v e s d e s i r e d g o a l b y h u r t i n g o t h e r s A s A c t o r S e l f - e n h a n c i n g E x p r e s s i v e F e e l s g o o d a b o u t s e l f C h o o s e s f o r s e l f M a y a c h i e v e d e -s i r e d g o a l A s A c t e d U p o n G u i l t y o r a n g r y D e p r e c i a t e s a c t o r A c h i e v e s d e s i r e d g o a l A s A c t e d U p o n S e l f - d e n y i n g H u r t , d e f e n s i v e , h u m i l i a t e d D o e s n o t a c h i e v e d e s i r e d g o a l A s A c t e d U p o n S e l f - e n h a n c i n g E x p r e s s i v e M a y a c h i e v e d e -s i r e d g o a l F i g u r e 2. N o n a s s e r t i v e , a g g r e s s i v e a n d a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r ( A l b e r t i & E m m o n s , 1970, p.11) I n 1973, J a k u b o w s k i - S p e c t o r m o d i f i e d A l b e r t i a n d E m m o n ' s f l o w c h a r t o f t h e e f f e c t s o f b e h a v i n g p a s s i v e l y , a g g r e s s i v e l y o r a s s e r t i v e l y : 8 I t e m P a s s i v e B e h a v i o r A s s e r t i v e B e h a v i o r A g g r e s s i v e B e h a v i o r C h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s o f t h e " b e h a v i o r Y o u r f e e l -i n g s w h e n y o u e n g a g e i n t h i s " b e h a v i o r T h e o t h e r p e r s o n ' s f e e l i n g s a b o u t s e l f w h e n y o u e n -g a g e i n t h i s b e h a v i o r T h e o t h e r p e r s o n ' s f e e l i n g s t o w a r d y o u w h e n y o u e n -g a g e i n t h i s b e h a v i o r E m o t i o n a l l y d i s h o n e s t , i n d i r e c t , s e l f - d e n y i n g , i n h i b i t e d H u r t , a n x i o u s a t t h e t i m e , a n d p o s s i b l y a n g r y l a t e r G u i l t y o r s u p e r i o r I r r i t a t i o n , p i t y , d i s -g u s t ( A p p r o p r i -a t e l y ) e m o t i o n a l l y h o n e s t , s e l f -e n h a n c i n g , e x p r e s s i v e C o n f i d e n t , s e l f - r e s p e c t -i n g a t t h e t i m e a n d l a t e r V a l u e d , r e s p e c t e d G e n e r a l l y r e s p e c t ( I n a p p r o p r i -a t e l y ) e m o t i o n a l l y h o n e s t , d i r e c t , s e l f - e n h a n c i n g a t e x p e n s e o f a n o t h e r , e x p r e s s i v e R i g h t e o u s , s u p e r i o r , d e -p r e c a t o r y a t t h e t i m e a n d p o s s i b l y g u i l t y l a t e r H u r t , h u m i l i a t e d A n g r y , v e n g e f u l F i g u r e 3 « A c o m p a r i s o n o f p a s s i v e , a s s e r t i v e a n d a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r ( J a k u b o w s k i - S p e c t o r , c i t e d i n O l s o n , 1976, p.9^) D a w l e y a n d W e n r i c h , A l b e r t i a n d E m m o n s , a n d J a k u b o w s k i -S p e c t o r h a v e p r o v i d e d m o d e l s w h i c h h a v e f a c i l i t a t e d c l a r i f i c a -t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n . T h e i r f o c u s o n b e h a v i o r a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s h a s a l l o w e d a s s e r t i o n t o b e e v a l u a t e d a g a i n s t t w o a l t e r n a t e m o d e s o r s e t s o f b e h a v i o r 9 r e s p o n s e ( i . e . p a s s i v i t y a n d a g g r e s s i o n ) . F e n s t e r h e i m (1971) v i e w e d a s s e r t i o n a s " t h e a c t i o n o f d e -c l a r i n g o n e s e l f ; o f s t a t i n g , T h i s i s w h o I a m , w h a t I t h i n k a n d f e e l . . . a n a c t i v e r a t h e r t h a n a p a s s i v e a p p r o a c h t o l i f e " (p.233). I n 1972, h e m o d i f i e d h i s d e f i n i t i o n t o i n c l u d e " a n o p e n a n d d i r e c t , h o n e s t a n d a p p r o p r i a t e e x p r e s s i o n o f w h a t a p e r s o n f e e l s a n d t h i n k s " ( p .35)- H e e l a b o r a t e d h i s c r i t e r i a o f " a p p r o p r i a t e " a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r b y s t a t i n g t h a t a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r d o e s n o t i n v o l v e h i g h l y e x p l o i t a t i v e b e h a v i o r t o w a r d s o t h e r s o r a l l o w s u c h b e h a v i o r t o w a r d s t h e s e l f ( F e n s t e r h e i m , 1972). I n 1971, L a z a r u s a r g u e d t h a t a s s e r t i o n i n v o l v e s o n l y • t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f l e g i t i m a t e r i g h t s . H o w e v e r , i n 1973 h e r e -v e r s e d h i s p o s i t i o n a n d c l a i m e d , o n t h e b a s i s o f h i s c l i n i c a l e x p e r i e n c e , t h a t a s s e r t i o n i n v o l v e s f o u r d i s t i n c t c o m p o n e n t s : t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s , r e f u s a l b e h a v i o r , t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f c o m p l i m e n t s a n d t h e a b i l i t y t o i n i -t i a t e a n d t e r m i n a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n s . J a k u b o w s k i (1978) a g r e e d w i t h L a z a r u s (1971) t h a t a s s e r -t i o n s h o u l d i n c l u d e o n l y t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f r i g h t s : A s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r i s t h a t t y p e o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r i n w h i c h a p e r s o n s t a n d s u p f o r h e r l e g i t -i m a t e r i g h t s i n s u c h a w a y t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f o t h e r s a r e n o t v i o l a t e d . A s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r i s a n h o n e s t , d i r e c t a n d a p p r o p r i a t e e x p r e s s i o n o f o n e ' s f e e l i n g s , b e l i e f s a n d o p i n i o n s . . . (p.75)« B o w e r a n d B o w e r (1976) d e f i n e d a s s e r t i o n a s " t h e a b i l i t y t o e x p r e s s y o u r f e e l i n g s , t o c h o o s e h o w y o u w i l l a c t , t o s p e a k u p f o r y o u r r i g h t s w h e n i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e , t o e n h a n c e y o u r s e l f - e s t e e m , t o h e l p y o u r s e l f , d e v e l o p s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , t o d i s a g r e e w h e n y o u t h i n k i t i s i m p o r t a n t , a n d t o c a r r y o u t p l a n s f o r m o d i f y i n g y o u r o w n b e h a v i o r a n d a s k i n g o t h e r s t o c h a n g e t h e i r o f f e n s i v e b e h a v i o r " ( p . 4 ) . L a n g e , R i m m a n d L o x l e y (1975) h a v e d e f i n e d a s s e r t i o n a s " t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f o n e ' s f e e l i n g s , b e l i e f s , o p i n i o n s a n d n e e d s i n a d i r e c t , h o n e s t , a p p r o p r i a t e m a n n e r . S u c h a s s e r t i v e b e -h a v i o r w i l l r e f l e c t a h i g h r e g a r d f o r o n e ' s o w n p e r s o n a l r i g h t s a n d t h e r i g h t s o f o t h e r s " ( p .37)- I t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t t h e t e r m " a p p r o p r i a t e " i n t h e p r e c e d i n g d e f i n i t i o n h a s n o t b e e n e x p l a i n e d : w h a t f a c t o r s o r c o m p o n e n t s c o m p r i s e a p p r o p r i a t e e x p r e s s i o n ? B a k k e r & B a k k e r - R a b d u (1973) r e s e r v e t h e t e r m a s s e r t i o n f o r o n e t y p e o f s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e t o a g g r e s s i o n i n w h i c h t h e p e r s o n m a i n t a i n s c o n t r o l o v e r a l l p a r t s o f h i s / h e r " t e r r i t o r y . A s s e r t i o n i n v o l v e s m a i n t a i n i n g o r r e g a i n i n g c o n t r o l o v e r " l o s t t e r r i t o r y " a n d f o r c i n g t h e a g g r e s s o r t o r e t r e a t f r o m " o c c u p i e d g r o u n d " ( p .59)• L o w e n (1967) a g r e e d w i t h u s i n g t h e t e r m a s s e r t i o n t o r e -f e r t o b e h a v i o r s i n v o l v i n g o p p o s i t i o n . H o w e v e r , h e d i s t i n -g u i s h e d b e t w e e n t w o f o r m s o f a s s e r t i o n : r e a c h i n g f o r w h a t o n e w a n t e d , a n d r e j e c t i n g w h a t o n e d i d n o t w a n t . 11 R a t h u s (1975) d e f i n e d a s s e r t i o n a s i n c l u d i n g a g g r e s s i v e r e s p o n s e s : A s s e r t i v e n e s s i s t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f o n e s e l f i n a p o s i t i v e , p r o d u c t i v e m a n n e r . W h i l e a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r m a y i n c l u d e a g g r e s s i v e r e s p o n s e s , i t a l s o i n c l u d e s s m i l i n g a t o t h e r s a n d e n g a g i n g i n s m a l l t a l k a b o u t t h e w e a t h e r . A s s e r t i v e b e h a v -i o r . . . m a y b e s t b e v i e w e d a s t h e a n t i t h e s i s o f i n h i b i t e d b e h a v i o r ( p . 9 ) . T h a t h e d i d n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n t h e t w o c o n s t r u c t s i s e v i d e n c e d w h e n o n e e x a m i n e s t h e i t e m s a n d v a l i d i t y e v i -d e n c e o n h i s A s s e r t i v e n e s s S c a l e ( R a t h u s , 1973)-E l l i s f e l t t h a t a s s e r t i v e n e s s w a s " p e r h a p s t h e h e a l t h i e s t f o r m o f a g g r e s s i o n " ( c i t e d i n O s b o r n & H a r r i s , 1975)- A l t h o u g h h e i n i t i a l l y d e f i n e d a s s e r t i o n a s a c o m p o n e n t o f a g g r e s s i o n , h e t h e n s t a t e d t h a t t h e k e y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h e t w o w a s t h a t i n a g g r e s s i o n , o n e d e m a n d e d o r d i c t a t e d w h a t s / h e w a n t e d o r b l a m e d o t h e r s ; w h e r e a s i n a s s e r t i o n , t h e i n d i v i d u a l s o u g h t w h a t s / h e w a n t e d w i t h o u t b l a m i n g o r d e m a n d i n g . M a y (1972) r e g a r d e d a s s e r t i o n i n t e r m s o f p o w e r . A s s e r -t i o n w a s s e e n a s a h o l d i n g f a s t s t a n c e : " H e r e I s t a n d ; y o u c a n c o m e t h i s f a r a n d n o f u r t h e r " ( p . l 4 8 ) . M a y f e l t t h a t w h e n ' a s s e r t i o n i s b l o c k e d o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e , a g g r e s s i o n t e n d s t o d e v e l o p ( p .1^3). T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i r e c t o r y o f A s s e r t i v e B e h a v i o r T r a i n -i n g ( I D A B T ) i n 1976 d e f i n e d a s s e r t i o n a s : D e f i n i t i o n o f A s s e r t i v e B e h a v i o r F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s a n d t h e e t h i -c a l f r a m e w o r k e x p r e s s e d h e r e i n , w e d e f i n e a s s e r t i v e 1 2 " b e h a v i o r a s t h a t c o m p l e x o f b e h a v i o r s , e m i t t e d b y a p e r s o n i n a n i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t e x t , w h i c h e x p r e s s t h a t p e r s o n ' s f e e l i n g s , a t t i t u d e s , w i s h e s , o p i n i o n s o r r i g h t s d i r e c t l y , f i r m l y a n d h o n e s t l y , w h i l e r e -s p e c t i n g t h e f e e l i n g s , a t t i t u d e s , w i s h e s , o p i n i o n s a n d r i g h t s o f t h e o t h e r p e r s o n ( s ) . S u c h b e h a v i o r m a y i n c l u d e t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f s u c h e m o t i o n s a s a n g e r , f e a r , c a r i n g , h o p e , j o y , d e s p a i r , i n d i g n a n c e , e m -b a r r a s s m e n t , b u t i n a n y o e v e n t i s e x p r e s s e d i n a m a n n e r w h i c h d o e s n o t v i o l a t e t h e r i g h t s o f o t h e r s . A s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f r o m a g g r e s -s i v e b e h a v i o r w h i c h , w h i l e e x p r e s s i v e o f o n e p e r -s o n ' s f e e l i n g s , a t t i t u d e s , w i s h e s , o p i n i o n s o r r i g h t s , d o e s n o t r e s p e c t t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n o t h e r s . W h i l e t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o b e c o m -p r e h e n s i v e , i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a n y a d e q u a t e d e f i n i t i o n o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r m u s t c o n s i d e r s e v e r a l d i m e n s i o n s : A . I n t e n t : b e h a v i o r c l a s s i f i e d a s a s s e r t i v e i s n o t i n t e n d e d b y i t s a u t h o r t o b e h u r t f u l o f o t h e r s . B . B e h a v i o r : b e h a v i o r c l a s s i f i e d a s a s s e r t i v e w o u l d b e e v a l u a t e d b y a n " o b j e c t i v e o b s e r v e r " a s i t s e l f h o n e s t , d i r e c t , e x p r e s s i v e a n d n o n -d e s t r u c t i v e o f o t h e r s . C . E f f e c t s : b e h a v i o r c l a s s i f i e d a s a s s e r t i v e h a s t h e e f f e c t u p o n t h e r e c e i v e r o f a d i r e c t a n d n o n d e s t r u c t i v e m e s s a g e , b y w h i c h a " r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n " w o u l d n o t b e h u r t . D / S o c i o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t : b e h a v i o r c l a s s i f i e d a s a s s e r t i v e i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e e n v i r o n -m e n t a n d c u l t u r e i n w h i c h i t i s e x h i b i t e d , a n d m a y n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d " a s s e r t i v e " i n a d i f f e r e n t s o c i o - c u l t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t ( p . 3 ) . T h e d e f i n i t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o b e c o m p r e h e n s i v e i n a g l o b a l s e n s e , h o w e v e r , i t f a i l s t o i d e n t i f y o r c o n s i d e r s p e c i f i c b e -h a v i o r s o r c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n o r o f a n a s s e r t i v e r e s s p o n s e . I n s u m m a r y , t h e v a r i o u s w a y s i n w h i c h a s s e r t i o n h a s b e e n c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a n d d e f i n e d i l l u s t r a t e s t h e l a c k o f c o n s e n s u s a m o n g t h e o r i s t s a n d r e s e a r c h e r s a s t o w h a t a s s e r t i o n a c t u a l l y i s . T h e m o s t r e c e n t d e f i n i t i o n s p r o v i d e d b y p r a c t i t i o n e r s ( J a k u b o w s k i , 1978; B o w e r & B o w e r , 1976; D a w l e y a n d W e n r i c h , 1976) a c t i v e l y e n g a g e d i n t e a c h i n g a s s e r t i o n i n d i c a t e t h e n e -c e s s i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e t w o c o n s t r u c t s . C o m p o n e n t s o f A s s e r t i o n R e l a t e d t o t h e p r o b l e m s o f c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n a n d d e f i n i -t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t o f a s s e r t i o n i s t h a t o f i d e n t i f y i n g t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r o r o f a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e . A m o n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s e n g a g e d i n t h e f i e l d , t h e r e i s n o g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t o n w h a t b e h a v i o r s a r e a s s e r t i v e o r o n w h e t h e r t h e s e c o m p o n e n t s a r e r e l a t e d o r i n d e p e n d e n t . A l t h o u g h a v a r i e t y o f w e l l - r e s e a r c h e d t e c h n i q u e s h a v e b e e n u s e d t o i n c r e a s e a s s e r -t i v e n e s s , l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n d e v o t e d t o t h e e m p i r i c a l s t u d y o f b e h a v i o r s c o m p r i s i n g a s s e r t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o H a l l , t h e f o c u s o f m u c h r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n d i r e c t e d t o w h a t W o l p e c a l l e d " h o s t i l e " a s s e r t i v e n e s s , w h i c h r e f e r s t o t h e " a p p r o p r i a t e e x p r e s s i o n o f d e m a n d s a n d l e g i t i -m a t e o p p o s i t i o n " ( c i t e d i n M c R e y n o l d s , 1978, p.22). W i t h r e -g a r d t o t h i s , C o t l e r (1975) a n d S e r b e r (1971) s u g g e s t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o s t u d y t h e m o r e p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s o f a s s e r t i o n s u c h a s t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f f e e l i n g s o f t e n d e r n e s s a n d a f f e c t i o n . A l t h o u g h s o m e c o m p o n e n t s h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n s t a t e d o r i m p l i e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n , a m o r e t h o r o u g h b r e a k d o w n w i l l b e p r o v i d e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e s t i o n s . F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f m a i n t a i n i n g c o n g r u e n c e o f p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e s p e c i f i c 1 4 b e h a v i o r s i n v o l v e d , i n n o n v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d . n o n s p e e c h c o n t e n t w i l l b e d e a l t w i t h i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n ( M e a s u r e -m e n t o f A s s e r t i o n ) . W h i t e l y a n d F l o w e r s (1978) c o n s i d e r e d a s s e r t i o n t o c o n -s i s t o f t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s : m a k i n g r e q u e s t s , m a k i n g r e f u s a l s , a n d e x p r e s s i o n s w h i c h i n v o l v e s e n d i n g p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e m e s s a g e s t o o t h e r s . R a t h u s (1975) h a s d e a l t w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t b y d i v i d i n g i t i n t o t e n t y p e s o f r e s p o n s e s : a s s e r t i v e t a l k ( e . g . s p e a k -i n g s o y o u a r e n o t t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f ) , f e e l i n g t a l k ( e . g . s p o n t a n e o u s e x p r e s s i o n o f l i k e s a n d d i s l i k e s a n d t h e o p e n s h a r -i n g o f f e e l i n g s ) , g r e e t i n g , o t h e r s , d i s a g r e e i n g ( a c t i v e l y a n d p a s s i v e l y ) , a s k i n g f o r a r e a s o n , t a l k i n g a b o u t y o u r s e l f , a g r e e -i n g w i t h c o m p l i m e n t s , a v o i d i n g j u s t i f y i n g y o u r o p i n i o n s , m a i n -t a i n i n g g o o d e y e c o n t a c t , a n d a n t i p h o b i c r e s p o n s e s ( p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n x i e t y - p r o v o k i n g a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h w o u l d b e p r o d u c t i v e f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l , b u t a r e n e g l e c t e d d u e t o a n x i e t y ) . A c c o r d i n g t o O s b o r n a n d H a r r i s ' s u m m a r y o f R a t h u s ' w o r k , a s s e r t i v e t a l k i n c l u d e s " d e m a n d i n g y o u r r i g h t s a n d i n s i s t i n g o n b e i n g t r e a t e d w i t h f a i r n e s s a n d j u s t i c e " ( p . 3 4 ) . R a t h u s i d e n t i f i e s t w o k i n d s o f g o a l - o r i e n t e d a s s e r t i v e t a l k : r e c t i -f y i n g s t a t e m e n t s ( w h i c h a t t e m p t t o c o r r e c t a n i n j u s t i c e ) , a n d c o m m e n d a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s ( i n t e n d e d t o g a i n f a v o r o r t o i n c r e a s e t h e f r e q u e n c y o f a c e r t a i n k i n d o f r e s p o n s e ) . A s s e r t i o n d o e s n o t a n d s h o u l d n o t i n v o l v e m a n i p u l a t i o n a s i m p l i e d b y " d e m a n d -i n g , " " i n s i s t i n g " o r " i n t e n d e d t o g a i n f a v o r . " 15 Bower and Bower (1976) have suggested there are twelve components of a s s e r t i o n : u s i n g f e e l i n g t a l k , t a l k i n g about y o u r s e l f , g r e e t i n g t a l k , a c c e p t i n g compliments, f a c i a l t a l k , d i s a g r e e i n g m i l d l y , a s k i n g f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , e x p r e s s i n g a c t i v e disagreement, a s k i n g why, speaking up f o r your r i g h t s , being p e r s i s t e n t , and a v o i d i n g j u s t i f y i n g every p o s i t i o n . Dawley and Wenrich (1976, p.5) saw a s s e r t i v e behavior as encompassing s i x t e e n separate components, adding l i t t l e c l a r i t y to the a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g c o n f u s i o n . T h e i r d i v i s i o n s i n c l u d e d : i n i t i a t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s , m a i n t a i n i n g c o n t r o l of c o n v e r s a t i o n s , extemporaneous t a l k i n g , e x p r e s s i n g p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s ( i n c l u d -i n g compliments and a f f e c t i o n ) , t a l k i n g about o n e s e l f , u s i n g " I " , a c c e p t i n g compliments, d i s a g r e e i n g a c t i v e l y and p a s s i v e l y , a s k i n g why, making requests, s a y i n g no, t e r m i n a t i n g conversa-t i o n s , v o i c e volume and speech f l u e n c y . Lazarus (1973) has argued f o r f o u r components on the b a s i s of h i s c l i n i c a l experience: the e x p r e s s i o n of both p o s i t i v e and negative f e e l i n g s , r e f u s a l behavior, the a b i l i t y to ask f o r f a v o r s and make demands, and the a b i l i t y to t e r m i n -ate and i n i t i a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n s . G a m b r i l l and Richey (1975* p.551) examined e i g h t c a t e -g o r i e s i n t h e i r A s s e r t i o n Inventory: t u r n i n g down r e q u e s t s , e x p r e s s i n g p e r s o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s such as a d m i t t i n g ignorance i n some areas, i n i t i a t i n g s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , e x p r e s s i n g p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s , h a n d l i n g c r i t i c i s m , d i f f e r i n g w i t h o t h e r s , a s s e r t i o n i n s e r v i c e s i t u a t i o n s and g i v i n g negative feedback. They a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e c o u l d v a r y d e p e n d i n g o n s u c h v a r i a b l e s a s t h e d e g r e e o f a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h a p e r s o n o r t h e s i t u a t i o n . M o r e r e c e n t l y , t h e r e h a s b e e n a t r e n d t o i n c l u d e e m p a t h -e t i c r e s p o n s e s a s a c o m p o n e n t o f a s s e r t i o n ( J a k u b o w s k i , 1 9 7 8 ; L a n g e , R i m m a n d L o x l e y , 1 9 7 5 ; W a r r e n & G i l n e r , 1 9 7 8 ) . A t t h i s p o i n t , t h e r e a d e r h a s b e e n f a m i l i a r i z e d w i t h t h e e q u i v o c a l n a t u r e o f m o s t d e f i n i t i o n s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d h o w t h i s h a s c o m p l i c a t e d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e s p e c i f i c c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n . T h e c o m p o n e n t s d e t a i l e d a b o v e h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d l a r g e l y b y l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s a n d c l i n i c a l e x p e r i e n c e ; f e w e r ( e . g . v o i c e v o l u m e , s p e e c h f l u e n c y ) h a v e b e e n s t u d i e d e m p i r i c a l l y . I n a t t e m p t i n g t o m a n a g e t h e c o n f u s i o n c r e a t e d b y a m b i g u o u s d e f i n i t i o n s b y i s o l a t i n g c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n , i t s e e m s t h a t t o s o m e e x t e n t , m o r e c o n f u s i o n h a s r e s u l t e d , o r a t l e a s t l i t t l e h e a d w a y h a s b e e n m a d e i n c l a r i -f i c a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t . M e a s u r e m e n t o f A s s e r t i o n T h e i n s u f f i c i e n t t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s , d i f f i c u l t y i n d e f i n i -t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t , a n d d i v e r g e n c e o f o p i n i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r h a v e a l l h a d i n t e r e s t i n g a n d d i r e c t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f a s s e r t i o n . A s w i t h m a n y n e w c o n s t r u c t s , t h e r a n g e o f a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e s i s e x t e n s i v e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e p r o b l e m o f d e f i n i n g a s s e r t i v e n e s s a s a p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t o r a s s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c h a s 17 f u r t h e r d i v e r s i f i e d a s s e s s m e n t s t r a t e g i e s . T h e i m p a c t o f t h e s e f a c t o r s o n a s s e s s m e n t i s s u e s h a s l e d t o a n u m b e r o f a p p r o a c h e s i n c l u d i n g c l i n i c a l i m p r e s s i o n , s t a n d a r d i z e d a n d u n s t a n d a r d i z e d s e l f - r e p o r t i n v e n t o r i e s , b e -h a v i o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n , n o n v e r b a l a n d v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n a l -y s i s , a n d p h y s i o l o g i c a l m e a s u r e s . E a c h o f t h e s e m e t h o d s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . G l o b a l C l i n i c a l I m p r e s s i o n A s s e r t i o n h a s o f t e n b e e n a s s e s s e d b y m e a n s o f c l i n i c a l i m p r e s s i o n f o r m e d t h r o u g h s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w t e c h n i q u e s ( L a z a r u s , 1966; W o l p e , 1970; R i m m , 1973; F e n s t e r h e i m , 1972). A l t h o u g h f o r m i n g c l i n i c a l i m p r e s s i o n s i n v o l v e s s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n a n d i s i n f l u e n c e d b y b i a s , t h i s t e c h n i q u e h a s d o n e m u c h t o s t i m u l a t e r e s e a r c h i n t o a s s e r t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e g a r d t o t r a i n i n g t e c h n i q u e s . S e l f - r e p o r t I n v e n t o r i e s A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e m a n y u n a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o i s s u e s o f v a l i d i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y , . i n f l u e n c e o f s o c i a l d e s i r -a b i l i t y a n d u s e f u l n e s s o f s e l f - r e p o r t m e t h o d s i n g e n e r a l , p a p e r a n d p e n c i l s e l f - r e p o r t t e c h n i q u e s h a v e b e c o m e a m a j o r a p p r o a c h t o t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f a s s e r t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l p r o v i d e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e o v e r v i e w o f t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d a n d n o n -s t a n d a r d i z e d a s s e r t i o n s c a l e s a v a i l a b l e . 18 The Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Questionnaire developed i n 1966 was the f i r s t s c a l e constructed to s p e c i f i c a l l y meas-ure a s s e r t i o n . I t i s nonstandardized and c o n s i s t s of 30 questions answered i n a yes/no format. Wolpe and Lazarus con-sidered t h e i r s c a l e a u s e f u l method f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g the gathering of c l i n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and as a research t o o l . Sample questions from the s c a l e i n c l u d e "Is i t d i f f i c u l t f o r you to p r a i s e others?" and "Are you i n c l i n e d to be overapolo-g e t i c ? " Evidence of i t s psychometric p r o p e r t i e s i s l a c k i n g i n that no d i r e c t s t u d i e s f o r the purpose of o b t a i n i n g t h i s i n f o r -mation are reported. Several s t u d i e s , however, provide i n -d i r e c t evidence f o r i t s v a l i d i t y . M c F a l l and Marston (1970) reported the t e s t d i s c r i m i n a t e d between a s s e r t i v e and randomly s e l e c t e d c o l l e g e students. Hersen, M i l l e r and E i s l e r (1973) found t h a t high and low a s s e r t i v e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r responses to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I n 1973, Young, Rimm and Kennedy found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between pre and post measures f o l l o w i n g a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g , whereas Kazdin (1974) d i d . An i n n o v a t i v e approach to measurement by Lawrence ( c i t e d i n Jakubowski, 1976) r e s u l t e d i n the Lawrence A s s e r t i v e I n -ventory (unpublished). This inventory describes s p e c i f i c s i t -uations and o f f e r s various response options; the person i s requested to choose the response which most c l o s e l y matches what they think they would do i n the s i t u a t i o n . The response options represent a s s e r t i v e , aggressive and unassertive r e -sponses to a s i t u a t i o n . : Lacks and Connelly (1975) found the mean completion time to be 24.4 minutes (range: 13-48 minutes). 19 The sc a l e was also found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale ( r = . 2 8 ) , and the s c o r i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n was skewed towards the. a s s e r t i v e range. Of the f o u r scales considered i n t h e i r study, the subjects* comments were most negative towards the Lawrence A s s e r t i v e -Inventory. Their c r i t i c i s m s i n c l u d e d : too long, too s p e c i f i c , nonrepresentative response categories and e a s i l y faked ( i . e . the " r i g h t " answers were u s u a l l y evident)... Jakubowski and Lacks (1975) reported the sc a l e has low concurrent v a l i d i t y ( r = . 3 0 ) . No a d d i t i o n a l psychometric data have been reported. Another s e l f - r e p o r t inventory i s the Bates-Zimmerman C o n s t r i c t i o n Scale ( 1 9 7 1 ) : a 4 l item f o r c e d choice (Yes/No) sc a l e which purports to sample overt and covert responses. Bates and Zimmerman (1971) r e p o r t Spearman-Brown s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s of .78 f o r men (N=150) and .77 f o r women (N=150). Kuder-Richardson i n t e r n a l consistency estimates are reported as .81 f o r males and . 8 0 f o r females. One month t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y was .79 (N=50) f o r males and .91 (N=150) f o r f e -males. As p a r t i a l evidence f o r v a l i d i t y , c o n s t r i c t i o n scores c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h s e v e r a l A d j e c t i v e C h e c k l i s t Scales: Deference (r= , 2 0 p< . 0 5 ) , Abasement (r= . 4 9 p< . 0 1 ) . and nega-t i v e l y w i t h A f f i l i a t i o n (r=- . 3 9 p <£. .01) , Dominance (r= - . 5 Q p< .001) and Autonomy ( r= - . 3 4 p<._.05)« "Only the r e s u l t s f o r males are reported above. Normative data i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e f o r the scale (N=600). A d d i t i o n a l v a l i d i t y and normative data are re q u i r e d f o r t h i s s c a l e . 20 The C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n Inventory (CRI) developed by M c F a l l and L i l l e s a n d (1971) i s unique i n i t s focus on a homo-genous c l a s s of a s s e r t i v e behavior. The s c a l e deals w i t h r e -f u s a l behavior; s p e c i f i c a l l y , the a b i l i t y of c o l l e g e students to say "no" to unreasonable requests. An item pool was con-s t r u c t e d by having c o l l e g e students describe s i t u a t i o n s i n which they found i t d i f f i c u l t to refuse requests. As a p i l o t , 82 items were administered to 60 c o l l e g e students. A f i v e p o i n t s c a l e ranging from A (I would refuse and f e e l comfortable doing so) to E ( I would agree to do i t because i t seems to be a reasonable request) was used. I n a d d i t i o n , eight g l o b a l items were r a t e d on a continuum from 0 (not much of a problem) to 100 (very s i g n i f i c a n t problem). The 35 items maximally d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between high and low a s s e r t i v e s were r e t a i n e d i n the f i n a l s c a l e . According to the developers of the s c a l e , fou r measures of a s s e r t i o n can be obtained: a g l o b a l r a t i n g of a s s e r t i v e n e s s , the t o t a l number of items responded to asser-t i v e l y , the t o t a l number of items answered u n a s s e r t i v e l y and the d i f f e r e n c e between a s s e r t i v e and una s s e r t i v e scores. M c F a l l and L i l l e s a n d (1971) r e p o r t a strong p o s i t i v e cor-r e l a t i o n between the CRI and a b e h a v i o r a l measure of a s s e r t i o n . I n a r e p l i c a t i o n study, Loo ( c i t e d i n Lange & Jakubowski, p.23^) found a c o r r e l a t i o n of .82. Unfortunately, there was no c o n t r o l f o r aggression i n d i c a t e d i n the b e h a v i o r a l measure. In another study, M c F a l l and Twentyman (1973) found the s c a l e to be i n s e n s i t i v e across treatment c o n d i t i o n s . According to Lacks and Connelly (1975) the mean completion time i s 16.1 21 minutes (range: 10-30 minutes) and i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e -l a t e d to the Marlowe-Crowne D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (r=.02). Com-ments obtained from those completing the sc a l e i n d i c a t e d the format f a c i l i t a t e d more honesty i n response. In a recent study (Melnick and Stocker, 1977) the CRI was found to be i n s e n s i t i v e across treatment c o n d i t i o n s . The pre-sent author i s unaware of any f u r t h e r research r e l a t i n g to other psychometric p r o p e r t i e s of the s c a l e . I n 1973i Rathus developed a 30 item schedule f o r assess-ing a s s e r t i v e behavior which he c a l l e d the Rathus A s s e r t i v e Scale (RAS). Many items on h i s s c a l e have been modified from the work of others (Wolpe, 1969; A l p o r t , 1928; G u i l f o r d & Zimmerman, 1956). The s c a l e points range from -3 (very un-c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of me, extremely n o n d e s c r i p t i v e ) to +3 (very c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of me, extremely d e s c r i p t i v e ) ; t o t a l scores can range i n value from 9^0 to +90. To c o l l e c t normative data, the scal e was administered to 1401 c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y students. The mean score f o r men was 11.6 (s=21.7) and 7-1 (s=23-3) f o r women. Rathus suggests on the basis of h i s c l i n i c a l exper-ience t h a t scores below -20.0 i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t a s s e r t i o n problems. The mean completion time i s 6.6 minutes w i t h a range from 3-15 minutes (Lacks and Connelly, 1975)' Rathus (1973 b) reported a three week t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i -c i e n t on 68 undergraduate men and women (age 17-27) to be r= . 78 • (p'< .01) . The s p l i t h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y between odd and ... even s c a l e items was reported as r=.77 (p <.01). 22 S e v e r a l s t u d i e s provide v a l i d i t y evidence f o r the RAS. Rathus (1972, 1973), Flowers and Goldman (I976), Holmes a n d " ' Horan (I976), and N e i t z e l and B e r n s t e i n (1976) have demon-s t r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t change on the s c a l e a f t e r a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . V a l i d i t y evidence based on gain scores must be i n -te r p r e t e d w i t h some cau t i o n . Pre and post t r a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s may be due to a c t u a l behavior change or may r e f l e c t the i n -fluence of extraneous v a r i a b l e s such as r e g r e s s i o n or f a k i n g the.scale by l e a r n i n g how to describe oneself more a s s e r t i v e l y . I n another study, Rathus and Nevid (1977) found p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than same sex c o l l e g e peers. In 1973, Rathus obtained some evidence of v a l i d i t y by c o r r e l a t i n g RAS scores w i t h two e x t e r n a l measures of a s s e r t i v e -ness: a 17 item semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e (Study 1) and a be h a v i o r a l measure obtained by audiotaping subject's responses to questions (Study 2). I n Study 1, 18 co l l e g e students administered the RAS to a t o t a l of 67 f r i e n d s , and a l s o r a t e d them on the 17 item semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l schedule. The schedule was f a c t o r analyzed using a p r i n c i p a l component procedure, followed by a varimax r o t a t i o n of the raw f a c t o r s . Four f a c t o r s which ac-counted f o r 71 • 2/6 of the variance were obtained: a s s e r t i v e -ness, r contentment, i n t e l l i g e n c e and p r o s p e r i t y , and h e a l t h . Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the f i v e s c a l e s comprising the as s e r t i v e n e s s f a c t o r and the RAS 23 i n d i c a t e d the f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s (p< . 0 1 ) : "boldness (r=.6l24), outspokenness ( r = . 6 l 6 3 ) , a s s e r t i v e n e s s (r=.3424), aggressiveness (r= . 5 3 7 4 ) and confidence (r=.329*0. According to these r e s u l t s , the RAS i s more h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h aggression than a s s e r t i o n ! I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that ( i n l i n e w i t h the d e f i n i t i o n of a s s e r t i o n ) Rathus used the s i g -n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the RAS and the aggressiveness subscale as evidence f o r construct v a l i d i t y of a s s e r t i o n . Examination of the sca l e items confirms the contamination of a s s e r t i o n by aggression: "Most people seem to be more aggres-s i v e and a s s e r t i v e than I am"; "There are times when I look f o r a good, vigorous argument" (p.399). I n Study 2, Rathus c o r r e l a t e d RAS scores w i t h r a t i n g s (l=very poor response to 5~ very good response) made from audiotaped responses to 5 questions, each preceded by a des-c r i p t i o n of a s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g an a s s e r t i v e response. A Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n of .70^9 (p< .01) was obtained. The choice of a second s e l f - r e p o r t technique was unfortunate i n t h a t the v a l i d i t y evidence f o r both methods i s questionable. A d d i t i o n a l l y , h i s c r i t e r i a f o r r a t i n g a s s e r -t i o n were p o o r l y defined. I n h i s summary of the study, Rathus s t a t e d the " f a i l u r e of the RAS scores to covary w i t h scores i n d i c a t i v e of i n t e l l i -gence, happiness, f a i r n e s s and so on i s suggestive that RAS scores are not confounded by a d e s i r e on the p a r t of respond-ents to answer items i n the manner they f e e l i s s o c i a l l y de-s i r a b l e " ( p . 4 0 3 ) . Lacks and Connelly (1975) however, have 2k found the RAS to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (r=.27 p< .01). Rathus and Nevid (1977) c o r r e l a t e d RAS scores w i t h the f a c t o r s defined i n Study 1 above f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c sample (r=-.80 p< .01). They sta t e d the RAS i s a " h i g h l y v a l i d meas-ure of a s s e r t i v e n e s s and s o c i a l aggressiveness of p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s i n terms of r a t i n g of t h e r a p i s t s who had come to know them during c l i n i c a l s e ssions" (p.395)- Scores f o r diagnosed n e u r o t i c s , s c hizophrenics and p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r s (not de-f i n e d ) on the RAS and the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h happiness, a c t i v i t y , and s t r e n g t h of w i l l . I n the n e u r o t i c sample, the RAS score was s i g n i f i -c a n t l y r e l a t e d to niceness (p< .05). This may suggest the i n f l u e n c e of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Mann and Flowers (1978) conducted a study on the r e l i -a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the RAS. They found the uncorrected s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y to be .595 (p< -01) compared to .7723 (p< .01) found by Rathus (1973 b ) . No data f o r t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y was reported. To assess the usefulness of the RAS as an e x t e r n a l instrument ( i . e . a f r i e n d completed the RAS f o r a person), a Spearman Brown c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was c a l -c u l a t e d , y i e l d i n g an r of .857 (p< .001). They then suggested: "Is i t q u i t e l i k e l y the e x t e r n a l r a t e r s evaluated the subject's a s s e r t i v e n e s s as d i s p o s i t i o n a l r a t h e r than s i t u a t i o n a l , which would account f o r the greater i n t e r n a l consistency of the e x t e r n a l r a t e r s ' t e s t s ? ... I n p a r t i c u l a r , i s i t p o s s i b l e t h a t 25 the s c a l e and other such instruments are s i t u a t i o n t e s t s when rat e d by e x t e r n a l r a t e r s " (p.634)? This suggestion seems unwar-ranted due to the f a c t t h a t e x t e r n a l r a t e r s may not know how a person would respond i n a given s i t u a t i o n ; scores would he i n -fluenced by the halo e f f e c t . In summary, the RAS appear to be contaminated w i t h aggres-s i o n , i n f l u e n c e d by s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , and i n the present author's op i n i o n , o f f e r s l i t t l e good v a l i d i t y evidence. At the present time, the RAS would seem most u s e f u l as a research t o o l . One of the most popular s e l f - r e p o r t scales i s the College S e l f - E x p r e s s i o n Scale (CSES) developed by G a l a s s i , DeLo, G a l a s s i and B a s t i e n (1974). I t c o n s i s t s of 50 items, some of which have been modified or r e w r i t t e n from others' work. Items are r a t e d on a frequency bas i s using a L i k e r t format from O-Almost Always or Always to 4-Never or Rarely; as the reader can see, the d e f i n i t i o n s of the s c a l e p o i n t s r e q u i r e some m o d i f i c a t i o n to avoid ambiguity i n response. There are 21 p o s i t i v e l y worded items and 29 n e g a t i v e l y worded ones. The CSES was developed according to the f o l l o w i n g r a t i o n a l e : In s p i t e of both i t s e a r l y development and the f a c t that a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g appears to be one of the most promising c o n t r i b u t i o n s by behavior t h e r -apy to date ... research on a s s e r t i v e n e s s has been slow to emerge. Perhaps one of the f a c t o r s t h a t has retarded i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s the absence of a standardized instrument which i s designed to serve d i a g n o s t i c purposes and to measure change. Pre-vious research has r e l i e d on instruments which were unstandardized (e.g. Lazarus, 1966), which were not designed to measure the construct (Hedquist & 26 Weinhold, 1970) or which tapped only l i m i t e d aspects of a s s e r t i v e n e s s (e.g. M c F a l l & L i l l e s a n d , 1971t p.165). The authors c l a i m the s c a l e taps three dimensions of asser-t i v e n e s s : P o s i t i v e a s s e r t i v e n e s s c o n s i s t s of expressing f e e l -ings of l o v e , a f f e c t i o n , admiration, approval and agreement. Negative a s s e r t i o n s i n c l u d e j u s t i f i e d f e e l i n g s of anger, disagreement, d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and annoyance; whereas, s e l f - d e n i a l i n c l u d e s overapolog-i z i n g , and exaggerated concern f o r the f e e l i n g s of others (p.168). The t h i r d dimension ( s e l f - d e n i a l ) might be more a p p r o p r i -a t e l y c a l l e d a p a s s i v i t y or una s s e r t i v e .factor r a t h e r than an asse r t i v e n e s s f a c t o r . A s s e r t i o n as o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined by the authors i s assessed across a v a r i e t y of r o l e occupants: s t r a n g e r s , auth-o r i t y f i g u r e s , business r e l a t i o n s , f a m i l y and r e l a t i v e s , l i k e and opposite sex peers ( p . l 6 8 ) . There i s no o r d e r l y breakdown of items across i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s . According to Lacks and Connelly (1975)f the mean completion time i s 8.1 minutes (range: 4-16 minutes). Apparently, the sc a l e i s not s i g n i f i -c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d by s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (r=.l8) and the .scores are normally d i s t r i b u t e d . Normative data has been s u p p l i e d f o r four samples: two student samples ( i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology and graduate students) and two teacher samples (elementary and secondary s c h o o l s ) . Two week t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r the student samples were reported as .89 and .90. An attempt at p r o v i d i n g evidence of co n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y was made by c o r r e l a t i n g CSES scores w i t h s e v e r a l A d j e c t i v e C h e c k l i s t Scales (ACL). Unfortunately, the ACL has v a l i d i t y problems of i t s own, and i s h i g h l y i n f l u e n c e d by response s t y l e . The authors found the CSES c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the f o l l o w i n g subscales: number checked (r=.33 p< .005), defensiveness (r=.35 p< .001), f a v o r a b l e (r=.30 p< .005), s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e (r=.46 p< .001), achievement (r=.34 p< .001), dominance (r=.46 p< .001), i n t r a c e p t i o n (r=,22 p< .05), h e t e r o s e x u a l i t y (r=,46 p< .001), e x h i b i t i o n (r=.48 p< .001), autonomy (r=,2k p< .01) and change (r=.43 p< .001). S i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n s (p< .05) were ob t a i n e d w i t h unfavorable (r=-.25), succorance (r=-.31) abase-ment (r=-.35), deference (r=-.29) and c o u n s e l l i n g readiness (r=-.^3). A p o s i t i v e but n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.17) was found between the CSES and Aggression subscale. The authors s t a t e d "The c o n f i r m a t i o n of a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n be-tween aggression and the CSES i s of e s p e c i a l importance since aggressiveness i s o f t e n mistaken f o r a s s e r t i v e n e s s " (p.170). A concurrent v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .19 (p< .05) was obtained between s u p e r v i s o r and s e l f - r a t i n g s of a s s e r t i v e n e s s The authors suggest the c o r r e l a t i o n may have been attenuated due to the su p e r v i s o r ' s lack of knowledge about the person 28 they were r a t i n g . Another study "by Loo i n 1972 ( c i t e d i n Lange and Jakubowski, 1976) reported a concurrent c o r r e l a t i o n of r=.30. I n a f u r t h e r study, G a l a s s i and G a l a s s i (1974) found a c o r r e l a t i o n of .33 (p< .005) between r e s i d e n t h a l l c o u n s e l l o r r a t i n g s and s e l f - r a t i n g s of a s s e r t i v e n e s s . A d d i t i o n a l evidence of con s t r u c t v a l i d i t y was provided i n 1975 by G a l a s s i and G a l a s s i . OSES scores were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the eight subscales of the Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory, (BDI) . The only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the OSES and BDI aggression s c a l e was f o r the v e r b a l aggression subscale i n the female sample (r=.38). At l e a s t one item on t h i s subscale appears to be measuring a s s e r t i o n r a t h e r than aggression: "When I disapprove of my f r i e n d s ' behavior, I l e t them know i t " (Buss, 1961, p.173). Other items r e q u i r e f i n e d i f f e r e n t i -a t i o n between aggression and a s s e r t i o n : " I f somebody annoys me, I am apt to t e l l him what I think of him" (p.173)• One p l a u s i b l e reason f o r t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n may be the d i f f i c u l t y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between as s e r t i v e n e s s and ag r e s s i v e -ness. The authors used the n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n as evidence f o r the uniqueness of the c o n s t r u c t s . The Adult S e l f - E x p r e s s i o n Scale (ASES) was developed by Gay, Hollandsworth and G a l a s s i (1975) to measure a s s e r t i v e n e s s i n a d u l t s . The authors s t a t e : In s p i t e of the pervasiveness and importance of asser t i v e n e s s problems, no e a s i l y administered, r e l i a b l e and v a l i d a t e d instrument i s a v a i l a b l e that i s s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to measure asser-t i v e n e s s f o r a d u l t s i n gener a l . Such an 29 i n s t r u m e n t i s n e e d e d f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s . F i r s t , i t c o u l d h e u s e d a s a n e f f i c i e n t m e a n s o f s a m p l i n g a c l i e n t ' s b e h a v i o r i n a b r o a d v a r i e t y o f i n t e r p e r s o n -a l s i t u a t i o n s . . . S e c o n d , s u c h a n i n s t r u m e n t c o u l d b e u s e d a s a n e f f i c i e n t s c r e e n i n g d e v i c e f o r i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n o f c l i e n t s w h o m i g h t b e n e f i t f r o m a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g p r o c e d u r e s . . . T h i r d , s u c h a n i n s t r u m e n t i s n e e d e d a s a r e s e a r c h t o o l ( p . 3 4 0 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r s c l a i m t h e s c a l e w a s v a l i d a t e d o n a g e n e r a l a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n , i n r e a l i t y , t h e 123 s u b j e c t s w e r e d r a w n f r o m E n g l i s h c l a s s e s a t a l a r g e c o m m u n i t y c o l l e g e . T h e y s t a t e : A s C l a r k ( i960) h a s p o i n t e d o u t , t h e c o m m u n i t y c o l -l e g e s t r i v e s t o r e m o v e s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c a n d a c a -d e m i c b a r r i e r s . T h e r e s u l t i n g " o p e n d o o r " p o l i c y h a s r e s u l t e d i n a d i v e r s e , u n s e l e c t e d s o c i a l b a s e ( C o l l i n s , 1966; C r o s s , N o t e 1; K o o s , 1970, p.34-0). A l t h o u g h c o m m u n i t y c o l l e g e s m a y s t r i v e t o c r e a t e a n o p e n -d o o r p o l i c y , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h i s h a s b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d i s d o u b t f u l ( C o h e n , 1975; A s t i n , 1977). A d d i t i o n a l l y , a l t h o u g h t h e a v e r a g e s t u d e n t a g e a t t h e c o l -l e g e i s r e p o r t e d a s 31 y e a r s , t h e m e a n a g e o f G a y ' s e t a l . s a m p l e w a s 24.5 y e a r s ( r a n g e : 18-54 y e a r s ) . T h e s c a l e i t s e l f c o n s i s t s o f 48 i t e m s w h i c h a r e r a t e d o n a 5 p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e f r o m 0 ( A l m o s t A l w a y s o r A l w a y s ) t o 4 ( N e v e r o r R a r e l y ) . T h e s c a l e p o i n t s a r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l d e f i n e d ; f o r e x a m p l e , h o w d o e s A l m o s t A l w a y s d i f f e r f r o m U s u a l l y ( S c a l e p o i n t 1)? O f t h e 48 i t e m s , 33 a r e t a k e n f r o m t h e G S E S : 29 h a v e b e e n v e r y s l i g h t l y m o d i f i e d a n d 4 a r e o r i g i n a l . F i f t e e n n e w i t e m s w e r e a d d e d , s o m e o f w h i c h w e r e 30 taken or m o d i f i e d from other assertiveness.. s c a l e s . . Not s u r p r i s -i n g l y , the A'SES and OSES c o r r e l a t e s • .88. The s c a l e was b u i l t u s i n g a two-dimensional (6x7) m u l t i -f a c e t e d approach to item c o n s t r u c t i o n . The f i r s t dimension covered i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s i n which a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r might occur: i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h p a r e n t s , f r i e n d s , i n t i m a t e r e -l a t i o n s , p u b l i c and a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e s . A s i x t h g l o b a l s i t u a -t i o n ( u n s p e c i f i e d ) was added to t h i s dimension. The second dimension d e a l t w i t h s p e c i f i c a s s e r t i v e behaviors o c c u r r i n g i n the above s i t u a t i o n s : " e x p r e s s i n g p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s , r e -f u s i n g unreasonable r e q u e s t s , t a k i n g the i n i t i a t i v e i n conver-s a t i o n s and i n d e a l i n g s w i t h o t h e r s , e x p r e s s i n g p o s i t i v e f e e l -i n g s , s t a n d i n g up f o r l e g i t i m a t e r i g h t s , e x p r e s s i n g negative f e e l i n g s , and aski n g f a v o r of o t h e r s " (p.341). A f t e r item a n a l y s i s , the authors s t a t e d : "at l e a s t 1 item was r e t a i n e d i n 40 of the 42 c e l l s of the model" (p.341). Thus, there are too few items i n the c e l l s to al l o w f o r examination by area. The authors do not i n d i c a t e which c e l l s the items f a l l i n t o or which c e l l s are empty. With r e g a r d to r e l i a b i l i t y data, two week t e s t - r e t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained from two samples (r=.88 N=6o, r=.91 N=63). In a r e c e n t study, Hollandsworth and G a l a s s i (1977) r e p o r t e d one week s t a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of .87 (p< .001, N=27j_ f o r an a v o c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t group (e.g. sew-i n g , woodworking), .81 (p< .001, N=34) f o r a c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s c l a s s , and .89 (p<.001, N=2l) f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c 31 i n p a t i e n t sample. An adjusted s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y (Spear-man-Brown) of .92 (p< .001, N=64) was reported f o r a p r i s o n sample. With regard to con s t r u c t v a l i d i t y , c o r r e l a t i o n s "between the ASES and ACL subscales were obtained. The r e s u l t s i n d i -cated the ASES was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . ( p ^ .001) w i t h the number of a d j e c t i v e s checked, s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , l a b i l i t y , achievement, dominance, a f f i l i a t i o n , h e t e r e o s e x u a l i t y , e x h i b i -t i o n , autonomy, aggression and change. Negative c o r r e l a t i o n s (p< .001) were obtained w i t h the succorance, abasement and deference s c a l e s of the ACL. A d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s proce-dure revealed t h a t anxiety (as measured by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale) and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e (Self-Confidence Scale of the ACL), s u c c e s s f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d between high and low a s s e r t i v e groups, whereas locus of c o n t r o l d i d not. In a f u r t h e r v a l i d a t i o n study using the m u l t i t r a i t -multimethod approach (Hollandsworth & G a l a s s i , 1977)» c o r r e l a -t i o n s between peer and s e l f - r e p o r t a s s e r t i o n ranged from .41 (p< .01) to .61 (p< .001). The authors claim moderate convergent and divergent v a l i d i t y were obtained. An inn o v a t i v e approach to the measurement of a s s e r t i o n i s evidenced i n the A s s e r t i o n Inventory developed by G a m b r i l l and Richey (1975)• I t i s a 4 0-item inventory w i t h a response format which provides a s u b j e c t i v e measure of discomfort (1-none to 5-very much), as w e l l as a s e l f - r e p o r t p r o b a b i l i t y of a person's l i k e l i h o o d of engaging i n a s p e c i f i e d behavior 32 (1-always do i t to 5-never do i t ) . I f d e s i r e d , an i n d i c a t i o n of s i t u a t i o n s i n which a person would l i k e to he more asser-t i v e can he obtained by having the i n d i v i d u a l c i r c l e the re l e v a n t s c a l e items. The components of a s s e r t i o n as defined by G a m b r i l l and Richey are: t u r n i n g down requests, expressing personal l i m i t -a t i o n s such as adm i t t i n g ignorance i n some areas, i n i t i a t i n g s o c i a l c o n t a c t s , expressing p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s , handling c r i t -i c i s m , d i f f e r i n g w i t h others, a s s e r t i o n i n s e r v i c e s i t u a t i o n s and g i v i n g negative feedback. The authors attempted also to b u i l d i n a dimension of f a m i l i a r i t y , e.g. str a n g e r s , intimates and f a m i l y . Normative data i s provided f o r f o u r samples of u n i v e r s i t y students and one group of women measured before and a f t e r an ass e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g program. Five week t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y i s reported f o r one sample of c o l l e g e students as .87 (N=49) f o r discomfort and .81 f o r response p r o b a b i l i t y . No evidence of item a n a l y s i s or i n t e r n a l consistency i s presented. With regard to v a l i d i t y , the authors found a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the means of a c l i n i c a l ( i . e . a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s ) and an undergraduate c o l l e g e sample. A p r i n c i p a l component f a c t o r a n a l y s i s w i t h varimax r o t a t i o n ( U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a PICKLE program) r e s u l t e d i n eleven f a c t o r s accounting f o r 6lfo of the t o t a l v ariance; each f a c t o r i n cluded 3«9-7$ of the varia n c e . On the b a s i s of the f a c t o r 33 a n a l y s i s , the authors suggested the s c a l e does not tap a homo-geneous c l a s s of behavior. That many f a c t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d i s not s u r p r i s i n g c o n s i d e r i n g the r a t i o n a l e f o r s c a l e develop-ment was not uni-dimensional. The purpose of the s c a l e was to tap a s s e r t i o n across a number of s i t u a t i o n s and behaviors. Bakker, Bakker-Rabdu and S t e i n (1976) have developed a s c a l e which attempts to assess both a s s e r t i v e n e s s and aggres-si v e n e s s . Contrary to most other researchers, they d i s t i n g u i s h between a s s e r t i o n and aggression i n terms of a t e r r i t o r i a l model. I n t h e i r view, "a response i s considered a s s e r t i v e when i t i s d i r e c t and s p e c i f i c to the area under a t t a c k . The pur-pose of the response must be to r e t a i n or r e g a i n c o n t r o l over a disputed area and e f f e c t i v e l y to re b u f f the aggressor" (p.3). They define aggression as any act which r e s u l t s i n the exten-s i o n of the t e r r i t o r y t h a t the person holds. The Bakker Assertiveness-Aggressiveness Inventory (BAAI) c o n s i s t s of 36 items d i v i d e d i n t o two 18 item subscales de-signed to measure a s s e r t i o n and aggression r e s p e c t i v e l y . Each 18 item subscale contains 9 p o s i t i v e l y keyed items and 9 neg-a t i v e l y keyed items. Based on G a m b r i l l and Richey's (1975) f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the A s s e r t i o n Inventory i n terms of s i t u -a t i o n s p e c i f i c i t y of response, the developers of the BAAI have provided f o r each item a d e s c r i p t i o n of a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n f o l l o w e d by a response. For example, "you are a guest i n the home of a new acquaintance. The dinner was so good you would l i k e a second h e l p i n g ... You go ahead and take a second 34 h e l p i n g . " I n some cases i t i s d i f f i c u l t to ra t e items as the s i t u a t i o n or response described i s somewhat vague, l e a d i n g to ambiguity i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by the r a t e r . Normative data on seven samples i s provided (N=8 to N=250). The sample groups i n c l u d e d c o l l e g e students (N=250), x-ray t e c h n i c i a n s (male =26, female =37), Water Department employees (female =8, male =21), nurses (female =91) and c i t y employees (male =17)• The mean on the a s s e r t i o n subscale ranged from 43.85 to 48.78 w i t h standard d e v i a t i o n s from 43.85 to 48.78 w i t h standard d e v i a t i o n s from 5-65 to 9.39 r e s p e c t i v e l y . On the aggression subscale, the mean ranged from 47.88 to 51*83 w i t h standard d e v i a t i o n s of 6.65 to 9«93 r e s p e c t i v e l y . T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s are provided f o r the c o l l e g e sample (N=250) who d i d not r e c e i v e a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n s were .75 f o r the A s s e r t i v e -ness subscale and .88 f o r the Aggressiveness subscale. C o r r e l a t i o n s between the Ass e r t i v e n e s s and Aggressiveness Scale ranged from .20 (N=8) to .59 (N=63) across the seven samples, s h a r i n g from 4 to 28$ of the v a r i a n c e . The develop-ers suggested these low c o r r e l a t i o n s lended support to the no t i o n t h a t a s s e r t i v e n e s s and aggressiveness tap two dimensions of human behavior. In summary, a l l s e l f - r e p o r t s c a l e s , w i t h the exception of the CRI attempt to assess a g l o b a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s f a c t o r as rep-resented across a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s and behaviors. Thus the problem of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g a s s e r t i o n as a p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t 35 or as s i t u a t i o n a l l y e x h i b i t e d s t i l l e x i s t s , at l e a s t w i t h i n the realm of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c a l e r e s u l t s . I t i s not sur-p r i s i n g a g l o b a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s f a c t o r has not been found when scales are constructed from a s i t u a t i o n a l l y dependent r a t i o n -a l e . The more recent scales demonstrate adequate r e l i a b i l i t y ; more evidence of v a l i d i t y s t i l l needs to be demonstrated f o r most s c a l e s . Normative data f o r the most part i s provided f o r a white p o p u l a t i o n only, u s i n g a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous subject p o o l ( i . e . c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s ) . None of the s c a l e s (with the exception of the BAAI) have a nonoverlapping s c a l e or subscale to measure aggression, and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to aggression remains unclear (only RAS, CSES, and ASES repo r t r e l e v a n t d a t a ) . A major problem w i t h the i n v e n t o r i e s i s t h a t the " r i g h t " answer i s u s u a l l y obvious, and could probably be e a s i l y faked. Less transparent items and/or the a d d i t i o n of l i e s c a l e s would do much to improve them. Another problem concerns the emphasis on e x p e r i e n t i a l components of a s s e r t i o n , r a t h e r than on the a c t u a l behaviors or components e x h i b i t e d . The preceding s e c t i o n has examined the most f a m i l i a r a s s e r t i o n i n v e n t o r i e s . There are, however, s e v e r a l unpublished Lange & Jakubowski (1976, p.276) c i t e a number of f a c t o r a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s r e v e a l i n g no g l o b a l f a c t o r s of a s s e r t i v e -ness, e.g. RAS, CSES, A s s e r t i o n Inventory, Lawrence A s s e r t i v e Inventory. E i s l e r et a l . (1975) support the view that an i n d i v i d u a l may be a s s e r t i v e i n one s i t u a t i o n and not i n another. and/or unstandardized scales which a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s use. Among these are: the A s s e r t i v e Self-Statement Test, Adoles-cent A s s e r t i o n D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Test ( c i t e d i n Bodner, 1975, p.92), A s s e r t i v e Behavior Assessment f o r Women (Osborn & H a r r i s , 1975), A s s e r t i v e Questionnaire (Phelps & A u s t i n , 1975, p-5), Assertiveness Inventory (Fensterheim & Baer, 1975, pp.49-50), D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Test on A s s e r t i v e n e s s , Aggressive and Nonasser-t i v e Behavior (Lange & Jakubowski, 1976, pp.41-52). B e h a v i o r a l Measures of A s s e r t i o n Another approach to the measurement of a s s e r t i o n has been to attempt to e m p i r i c a l l y i s o l a t e the b e h a v i o r a l components of the a s s e r t i v e response. This s e c t i o n w i l l examine the non= v e r b a l and v e r b a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a s s e r t i o n as i d e n t i f i e d i n the research l i t e r a t u r e . Nonverbal components of a s s e r t i o n . Laws and Serber (1971) c l a i m to have i s o l a t e d f a c i a l expression, body movement, and head o r i e n t a t i o n as components of a s s e r t i o n . The f r e -quency of s m i l i n g and d u r a t i o n of l o o k i n g have been i s o -l a t e d by E i s l e r et a l . (1974) but have not c o n s i s t e n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d across s i t u a t i o n s ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r & Hersen, 1973). Proximics has been i s o l a t e d as a component (Bodner, Booraem & Flowers, 1972), and Serber (1972) has i d e n t i -f i e d eye contact as a component of a s s e r t i o n . The nonspeech c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which have been i s o l a t e d as components i n at l e a s t one experiment are loudness of s p e e c h ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r & H e r s e n , 1973) a n d a f f e c t ( E i s -l e r , M i l l e r , H e r s e n , 1973; E i s l e r , H e r s e n & M i l l e r , 1 9 7 3 ) . O t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d b u t d o n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e c o n s i s t e n t l y i n c l u d e r e s p o n s e l a t e n c y ( K a z d i n , 197*M E i s l e r , M i l l e r & H e r s e n , 1973; M c F a l l & L i l l e s a n d , 1 9 7 1 ) , s p e e c h f l u e n c y ( S e r b e r , 1971; L a w s & S e r -b e r , 1971) a n d d u r a t i o n o f s p e e c h / n u m b e r o f w o r d s ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r & H e r s e n , 1973; M c F a l l & L i l l e s a n d , 1971 ; R e h m & M a r s t o n , 1 9 6 8 ) . R o l e p l a y h a s b e e n u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e b e h a v i o r a l m e a s u r e m e n t o f a s s e r t i o n . O n e o f t h e m o s t s t a n d a r d s i t u a -t i o n s i n v o l v e s p r o v i d i n g a n a u d i o t a p e d o r r o l e m o d e l c u e t o w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t r e s p o n d s . T h e r e s p o n s e i s t h e n a n a l -y z e d . M c F a l l a n d L i l l e s a n d (1971) i n a n i n t e r e s t i n g s t u d y o b t a i n e d a m e a s u r e o f t h e s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y t o c o n t i n u e r e f u s i n g r e q u e s t s , e a c h s u c c e s s i v e r e s p o n s e b e i n g r a t e d f o r a d e q u a c y o n a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e . T h e s u b j e c t ' s f i n a l r e -f u s a l t h e n b e c o m e s h i s / h e r o v e r a l l , r a t i n g o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s . B e l l a c k (1978) h a s r e c e n t l y q u e s t i o n e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f r o l e p l a y t e c h n i q u e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f s o c -i a l s k i l l s . M o s t v a l i d i t y e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g r o l e p l a y t e c h n i q u e s r e s t s o n p r e a n d p o s t m e a s u r e s o f a s s e r t i o n . L i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f e x t e r n a l o r d i v e r g e n t v a l i d i t y h a s b e e n p r o v i d e d . V e r b a l a n a l y s i s . O t h e r b e h a v i o r a l a p p r o a c h e s h a v e i n c l u d -e d t h e d i c h o t o m o u s s c o r i n g o f w h e t h e r a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e 38 occurred ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r & Hersen, 1973) or r a t i n g s on a L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e (McFall & L i l l e s a n d , 1971; Rathus, 1972; M c F a l l , G a l b r a i t h & Twentyman, 1971; E i s l e r , Hersen & M i l l e r , 1973)• Unfortunately, none of the research s t u d i e s have used a nonoverlapping s c a l e to measure aggres-s i o n , which creates the p o s s i b i l i t y of contamination of the r a t i n g s c a l e by aggression. An exception to t h i s i s a study conducted by Lehman-Olson (Olson, 1976) who de-veloped two b e h a v i o r a l measures: one f o r a s s e r t i o n and one f o r aggression. No psychometric data i s reported i n her study. Using high-low or pre-post measures, the p a r a l i n -g u i s t i c aspects of speech which have been i s o l a t e d i n c l u d e making requests f o r a person to change t h e i r behavior ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r & Hersen, 1973) and an increase i n the number of p o s i t i v e statements ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r , Hersen & A l f o r d , 1974). The c r i t e r i a as to what c o n s t i t u t e s an a s s e r t i v e r e -sponse i n most st u d i e s are p o o r l y defined which make com-p a r i s o n among st u d i e s d i f f i c u l t at best. A l s o , the s m a l l sample s i z e s and lack of c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n make compari-sons d i f f i c u l t . P h y s i o l o g i c a l Measures L i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d to p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures of a s s e r t i o n . M c F a l l and Marston (1970) have shown t h a t 39 f o l l o w i n g a r o l e p l a y s i t u a t i o n , a s s e r t i v e t r a i n e e s have a lower pulse r a t e than a c o n t r o l group. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n of A s s e r t i v e Responses While the above studi e s have focused p r i m a r i l y on the a c q u i s i t i o n of a s s e r t i v e responses, l e s s research has been de-voted to the study of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e responses outside the experimental s e t t i n g or t r a i n i n g group. The a v a i l -able research i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y , but o v e r a l l suggests that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s most l i k e l y to take place i n s i t u a t i o n s s i m i l a r or i d e n t i c a l to the one i n which the i n d i v i d u a l was t r a i n e d . G e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s reduced across d i s s s i m i l a r s i t u a -t i o n s . W i t h i n the experimental l i t e r a t u r e , f o r example, M c F a l l and L i l l e s a n d (1971) found t h a t t r a n s f e r occurred f o r u n t r a i n -ed r e f u s a l requests when the subject has been t r a i n e d i n r e -f u s a l behavior, but that t h i s d i d not g e n e r a l i z e to other s i t u a t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , Lawrence (1970; c i t e d i n Lange & Jakubowski, 1976, p.290) found that t r a i n i n g subjects to ex-press disagreement w i t h opinions d i d not g e n e r a l i z e to other behaviors considered to be a s s e r t i v e (e.g. expressing honest agreement w i t h others' o p i n i o n s ) . Using follow-up q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , Mayo, Bloom and Pearlman ( c i t e d i n Lange & Jakubowski, 1976, p.289) found that 95$ of the graduates from an a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g workshop were able to maintain t h e i r l e v e l of a s s e r t i o n 6-18 months l a t e r . Lange & Jakubowski (1976, p.290) have o f f e r e d f o u r reasons 4o f o r the lack of t r a n s f e r . F i r s t , they suggest t h a t , as the s t u d i e s are experimental, they may bear l i t t l e resemblance to the group dynamics of an a s s e r t i v e workshop (e.g. group sup-p o r t , v i c a r i o u s l e a r n i n g ) . No evidence i s c i t e d to support t h i s hypothesis. Second, they suggest t h a t many subjects en-l i s t e d f o r experimental s t u d i e s may not be motivated to change t h e i r behavior. However, subjects are o f t e n volunteers i n experimental s t u d i e s and therefore may be motivated towards behavior change. T h i r d l y , they suggest that the b e h a v i o r a l measures used may be too crude to measure changes a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g . Considering the d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e amount of research on t r a i n i n g versus i s o l a t i o n of components and the r e l a t i v e recency i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the need to i d e n t i f y components, t h i s may be t r u e . F i n a l l y , Lange & Jakubowski suggest the s u b j e c t s ' experiences are of s h o r t e r d u r a t i o n than would actu-a l l y occur i n c l i n i c a l a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . With the increase i n the number of one day a s s e r t i v e n e s s workshops across the country, t h i s may not be the case. Another problem i n i n t e r p r e t i n g r e s u l t s from b e h a v i o r a l research i s how they c o r r e l a t e w i t h s e l f - r e p o r t measures of a s s e r t i o n . Some researchers ( E i s l e r , M i l l e r & Hersen, 1973) have found p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , and others have reported low but p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Lange & Jakubowski, 1976; Holmes & Horan, 1976). S i g n i f i c a n t change a f t e r a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g has been reported on a measure of behavior, but not on a s e l f -r e port measure (Hersen, E i s l e r , M i l l e r , Johnson & P i n k s t o n , 1973); whereas, sometimes j u s t the reverse has occurred 41 (McFall & Marston, 1 9 7 1 ) . S e v e r a l sources may help to account f o r the c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s found. Some b e h a v i o r a l measures, p a r t i c u l a r l y r o l e p l a y techniques, appear to be simply g l o r i f i e d s e l f - r e p o r t measures. As p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , v a l i d i t y evidence f o r some s e l f - r e p o r t i n v e n t o r i e s and many b e h a v i o r a l measures i s l a c k -i n g . Many st u d i e s have been conducted on s m a l l sample s i z e s , and l i t t l e e f f o r t has been made to r e p l i c a t e them. Thus, the c o r r e l a t i o n s obtained appear to depend i n p a r t on what meas-ures have been used. U n t i l a d d i t i o n a l refinements have been made i n b e h a v i o r a l measures and c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s are conducted, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - r e p o r t techniques and b e h a v i o r a l measures w i l l remain unresolved. P e r s o n a l i t y Measures A t t i t u d e change due to a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g has been demon-s t r a t e d on the f o l l o w i n g instruments: C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (Self-Acceptance S c a l e ) , Eynsenck P e r s o n a l i t y I n -ventory, Fear Survey Schedule, Bernreuter S e l f - S u f f i c i e n c y Inventory (Hartsook, Olch & DeWolf, I976), S o c i a l Anxiety and D i s t r e s s Scale, S-R Inventory of Anxiousness (Christensen & Arkowitz, 1974), Taylor Manifest Anxiety Sc a l e , Gough Adjec-t i v e C h e c k l i s t (Rehm & Marston, 1968), Temple Fear Survey Schedule (Rathus, 1972; 1973 a ) , Rosenweig P i c t u r e F r u s t r a t i o n Test, Repression S e n s i t i z a t i o n S c a l e , Jacob's Survey of Mood and E f f e c t (Synder, c i t e d i n Bodner, 1975)f W i l l o u g h l y 42 P e r s o n a l i t y Schedule (Kazdin, 1974), Minnesota M u l t i - p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory and the Leary I n t e r p e r s o n a l C h e c k l i s t (Lomont, G i l n e r , Spector & Skinner, I969)• With regard to the number of references to p e r s o n a l i t y measures, Bodner (1975) s t a t e s : the absence of reference to c l i n i c a l l y accepted psychometric instruments such as the C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory, S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y Factors Questionnaire ... r a i s e s some questions as to t h e i r perceived usefulness by a s s e r t i o n researchers. While c l i n i c a l researchers o f t e n use these i n s t r u -ments, t h e i r g l o b a l approach to p e r s o n a l i t y and psychopathology f a i l s to focus on the b e h a v i o r a l components of a s s e r t i o n s k i l l s necessary i n asser-t i o n t r a i n i n g research (p.91)« Bodner's p o i n t i s w e l l taken: i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess g l o b a l changes when the s p e c i f i c components of a s s e r t i o n have not been i s o l a t e d . I t should be noted that many of the stud-dies c i t e d above have used g a i n score a n a l y s i s , a procedure f o r which the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y are c u r r e n t l y i n question. Nevertheless, there i s a growing body of l i t e r a t u r e which a t t r i b u t e s c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s (Osborn & H a r r i s , 1976; A l b e r t i & Emmons, 1970; Hartsook et a l . , 1976). I f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are evident i n people considered to be a s s e r t i v e , these dimensions of p e r s o n a l i t y should be able to be i d e n t i f i e d by g l o b a l person-a l i t y assessment techniques. This s e c t i o n has examined the i n t e r p l a y between t h e o r e t -i c a l , conceptual and d e f i n i t i o n a l i s s u e s w i t h regard to t h e i r impact on measurement of a s s e r t i o n . I t becomes evident t h a t 43 more research needs to be devoted to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a c t u a l components c o n s t i t u t i n g a s s e r t i o n . By f o c u s i n g on w e l l defined s p e c i f i c components i n f u t u r e research, r a t h e r than on e x p e r i e n t i a l aspects, a step towards co n s t r u c t c l a r i f i c a t i o n w i l l be made. AGGRESSION The study of aggression shares many of the same types of problems encountered i n research on a s s e r t i o n . Although there i s a l a r g e r t h e o r e t i c a l base (aggression i s an older con-s t r u c t ) , there i s lack of agreement as to which theory most adequately e x p l a i n s aggression/aggressive behavior. There are a number of equivocal d e f i n i t i o n s , and a v a r i e t y of measure-ment techniques, which make i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of aggressive be-haviors d i f f i c u l t , as w i l l become c l e a r i n t h i s s e c t i o n . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g the two constructs are o f t e n confused. Theories, Models and D e f i n i t i o n s E a r l y t h e o r i s t s viewed aggression as i n s t i n c t u a l be-havior? an unavoidable, v i o l e n t and d e s t r u c t i v e d r i v e which could be modified and c o n t r o l l e d by the formation of emotional t i e s between people and by the a v a i l a b l e opportunity to out-wardly discharge these innate aggressive impulses (Freud, 1920). The f r u s t r a t i o n - a g g r e s s i o n (F-A) hypothesis formulated by D o l l a r d , Doob, M i l l e r , Mowrer and Sears (1939) proposed a 44 one-to-one r e l a t i o n s h i p "between f r u s t r a t i o n and aggression: an unavoidable cause of aggression was f r u s t r a t i o n ( p . l ) . Aggression, once aroused, could only be reduced by the i n f l i c -t i o n of i n j u r y . They defined aggression as "any sequence of behavior, the goal-response to which i s the i n j u r y of the per-son towards whom i t i s d i r e c t e d " (p.9). Other t h e o r i s t s f e l t t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n d i d not take i n t o account other types of be-haviors which would commonly be judged as aggressive. To deal w i t h t h i s problem, some t h e o r i s t s have proposed d i f f e r e n t types of aggression. Berkowitz (1962) re-evaluated the F-A hypothesis i n terms of two v a r i a b l e s he f e l t intervened i n t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p ( i n -t e r p r e t a t i o n and anger) and made the d i s t i n c t i o n between h a b i t u a l aggression and anger produced aggression. He f e l t t h a t f r u s t r a t i o n produced an emotional s t a t e of anger, which increased the p r o b a b i l i t y of aggression. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n was re l e v a n t to the h a b i t u a l l y h o s t i l e person, who has learned to catego r i z e or i n t e r p r e t a wide v a r i e t y of events or people as threatening or f r u s t r a t i n g to him. When such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are made i n the presence of r e l e v a n t cues, aggressive behavior r e s u l t e d . Feshback (1964) argued f o r the i n c l u s i o n of m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s i n d e f i n i n g aggression. He f e l t t h a t some knowledge of i n t e n t (to hurt) and expectation of outcome was necessary f o r an aggressive act to occur. He defined three types of ag-gre s s i v e a c t s : i n c i d e n t a l aggression, where the behavior was considered i n c i d e n t a l and/or aimless; instrumental aggression, i n which the aggressor held no p a r t i c u l a r f e e l i n g about the r e c i p i e n t , and h o s t i l e aggression, i n which the aggressor i n -tended to d e l i b e r a t e l y hurt the r e c i p i e n t . Buss (1961) defined aggression as "a response that de-l i v e r s a noxious s t i m u l i to another organism" (p.3, 2C4). He attempted a b e h a v i o r a l d e f i n i t i o n of aggression i n terms of antecedents, reinforcement h i s t o r y , s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n and temperament of the person. Buss thought that aggression and the h a b i t of a t t a c k i n g were synonomous, and saw the. i n c l u s i o n of i n t e n t i n the d e f i n i t i o n as unnecessary. One r e s u l t of h i s work was the development of the Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory which purports to measure 5 types of aggression and 2 types of h o s t i l i t y (Buss & Durkee, 1954). From an e t h o l o g i c a l viewpoint, Lorenz (1966) viewed aggres-s i o n as a s e l f - g e n e r a t i n g f i g h t i n g i n s t i n c t . He b e l i e v e d ag-gr e s s i o n g r a d u a l l y b u i l d s up u n t i l i t i s r e l i e v e d by an appro-p r i a t e s t i m u l i . He considered removal of aggression l e d to a st a t e of nonmotivation. Lorenz l i n k e d h o s t i l i t y to a f f i l i a t i o n and suggested there was no love without aggression. A l b e r t i and Emmons (1970) focussed on the consequences of aggression. They defined an aggressive person as "one who ac-complishes h i s ends u s u a l l y at the expense of others" (p.10). Aggressive behavior f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t e d i n derogation of the r e c i p i e n t , which i n t u r n l e d to f e e l i n g s of f r u s t a t i o n and hatred f o r the aggressor. They d i s t i n g u i s h e d between a " g e n e r a l l y aggressive person" who i s aggressive i n a l l types of s i t u a t i o n s , and a " s i t u a t i o n a l l y aggressive person" who responds a g g r e s s i v e l y only i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s . From a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g p e r s p e c t i v e , Bandura suggested d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g aggressive behaviors i n terms of t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l value. He defined aggression as that behavior which: ... r e s u l t s i n personal i n j u r y and i n d e s t r u c t i o n of property. The i n j u r y may be p s y c h o l o g i c a l ( i n the form of de v a l u a t i o n of degradation) as w e l l as p h y s i c a l ... A f u l l e x p l a n a t i o n of aggression must consider both s o c i a l judgements t h a t determine which i n j u r i o u s acts are l a b e l l e d as aggressive (p. 5 ) . He suggested the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s determine whether a be havior w i l l be defined as aggressive: judgements about the i n t e n s i t y of the response to the behavior, observations of expressions of p a i n and i n j u r y by the r e c i p i e n t s ; i n t e n t i o n s a t t r i b u t e d to the performer; the s o c i a l context; the r o l e s t a -tus of the p e r p e t r a t o r ; recent or remote antecedents; charac-t e r i s t i c s of the l a b e l l e r s such as socio-economic l e v e l , sex, ethnic background, education and occupational s t a t u s ; and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the aggressor such as whether or not th a t behavior i s considered i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r that p a r t i c u l a r per-son ( p . 5 - 8 ) . He then continued: p h y s i c a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s i s more l i k e l y to be defined as aggressive i f performed by a female than a male because such behavior departs more widely from com-mon expectations of appropriate female conduct. Conversely, s i m i l a r a s s e r t i v e n e s s by boys i n a delinquent gang would i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y be under-ra t e d w i t h respect to aggressiveness (p.8). Bach and Goldberg, authors of C r e a t i v e Aggression—The A r t of A s s e r t i v e L i v i n g (1974) defined aggression as i n v o l v i n g v e r b a l expressions of anger, resentment and rage; s e l f - a s s e r t i o n ; c o n f r o n t a t i o n ; a c t i v e reaching out to s i t u a t i o n s and people; c o n f l i c t expression and e x p l o r a t i o n ; open m a n i f e s t a t i o n of personal power s t r i v i n g s ; i d e n t i t y p r o t e c t i o n and saying "No" (p.114). From t h i s b e h a v i o r a l d e f i n i t i o n , and the t i t l e of t h e i r book, i t i s obvious they have made no d i s t i n c t i o n between the two c o n s t r u c t s . Such a d e f i n i t i o n does l i t t l e to c l a r i f y the c o n s t r u c t s , and may mislead the l a y person f o r whom the book i s p r i m a r i l y designed, i n t o b e l i e v i n g that i n a p p r o p r i a t e ag-g r e s s i o n i s synonomous w i t h a s s e r t i o n and t h e r e f o r e construc-t i v e . May (1972) saw aggression "as a t h r u s t toward the person or t h i n g seen as the adversary. I t s aim i s to cause a s h i f t i n power f o r the i n t e r e s t s of one's s e l f or what one i s de-voted t o " (p.148). Constructive forms of aggression i n c l u d e d c u t t i n g through b a r r i e r s to i n i t i a t e a r e l a t i o n s h i p ; confront-ing others w i t h the i n t e n t of p e n e t r a t i n g i n t o h i s conscious-ness, warding o f f powers t h a t t h r e a t e n one's i n t e g r i t y and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . E l l i s ( c i t e d i n Osborn et a l . , 1975) b e l i e v e d there were ten types of aggressive behaviors: annoyance, argumentative-ness, arrogance, a s s e r t i v e n e s s , domination, f u r y , h o s t i l i t y , 48 i n s u l t s , o p p o s i t i o n and v i o l e n c e . He f e l t t h a t : Aggression can c l e a r l y vary from m i l d argumentative-ness to severe o p p o s i t i o n a l i s m ; from healthy asser-t i o n to unhealthy domineering; from p o s i t i v e to negative defensiveness; from moderate combativeness to intense v i o l e n c e ; from v e r b a l arrogance or i n -s u l t to murderous f u r y (p.32). Healthy aggression was considered to be " c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the human goals of remaining a l i v e , being r e l a t i v e l y happy, l i v i n g s u c c e s s f u l l y i n a s o c i a l group and r e l a t i n g i n t i m a t e l y to s e l e c t e d members of that group." Unhealthy aggression de-t r a c t e d from these goals. In an e a r l i e r work, E l l i s ( c i t e d i n Olson, 1976) d i d d i s t i n g u i s h between aggression and a s s e r t i o n : (1) a s s e r t i v e behavior occurs when an i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v e l y seeks to get what he wants (2) aggression occurs when the i n d i v i d u a l demands or d i c t a t e s that he must a b s o l u t e l y get what he wantsaand/or blames other f o r h i s f r u s t r a -t i o n s (p.105)• E l l i s f e l t that a s s e r t i o n was-:a r a t i o n a l behavior and aggression was i r r a t i o n a l , and th a t t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n pro-vided the key to understanding them. Why he d i d not maintain t h i s view i n the 1973 reference i s unknown. Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau (1973) defined aggression as "any act which r e s u l t s i n the extension no matter how tempor-ary of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s t e r r i t o r y . The term i n d i c a t e s growth r a t h e r than d e s t r u c t i o n . Any behavior, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t leads to the enlargement of a person's t e r r i t o r y can be described 49 as aggressive" (p.267). They also examined some of the pro-blems encountered when sex roles are linked with aggression: Looking at aggression from t h i s perspective, one can r e a d i l y discern the tyranny of the s o c i a l de-mand that a woman should not be aggressive. In fact , t h i s seeks to deny a woman the ri g h t to ex-tend her t e r r i t o r y beyond the narrow confines of the areas allocated to her by society: the home, childcare, and other such functions. This con-finement keeps her from entering the broader public arena of open competition. The linkage of the word aggression with h o s t i l i t y , anger and f i g h t i n g has helped much i n convincing women that behavior which hints of aggression i s unfeminine and therefore most unbecoming (p.53)« According to Dawley et a l . (1976) aggressiveness i s "the tendency to display offensive, h o s t i l e behaviors against others without regard for t h e i r r i g h t s " (p.4). Lange and Jakubowski (1976) stated that: Aggression involves d i r e c t l y standing up f o r per-sonal rights and expressing thoughts, fe e l i n g s and b e l i e f s i n a way which i s usually dishonest, usually inappropriate and always v i o l a t e s the rights of others (p.10). Jakubowski (1978) has recently revised t h i s d e f i n i t i o n to include: The purpose of aggressive behavior i s to humiliate, dominate or put the other person down rather than to simply express one's honest emotions or thoughts. It i s an attack on the person rather than on the person's behavior (p.77) • In summary, aggression has been considered and defined i n numerous ways. Variations have arisen because some theorists have focussed on the attributes of the behavior whereas others 50 have included, assumptions:, the i n s t i g a t o r , emotional concom-i t a n t s , i n t e n t or consequences. The trend i n d e f i n i t i o n has s h i f t e d from a s u r v i v a l n e c e s s i t y , to focus on d e s t r u c t i v e or c o n s t r u c t i v e components. Many inv o l v e d i n AT see aggres-s i o n as d e s t r u c t i v e ; t h i s viewpoint i s shared by the present author. Measurement of Aggression Assessment s t r a t e g i e s f o r aggression are as d i v e r s i f i e d as those f o r the measurement of a s s e r t i o n . Measurement of aggression has been complicated by s o c i a l i n h i b i t i o n and neg-a t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s of a c t i n g a g g r e s s i v e l y . This s e c t i o n w i l l provide an overview of the common s t r a t e g i e s employed i n the assessment of aggression. P r o j e c t i v e Techniques U n t i l r e c e n t l y , the use of p r o j e c t i v e techniques has been the most popular method f o r the assessment of aggression. The underlying assumption i n the use of p r o j e c t i v e s i s that by presenting a r e l a t i v e l y ambiguous s t i m u l i , s u b j e c t s ' under-l y i n g dynamics and defenses can be assessed. Two p r o j e c t i v e t e s t s used f r e q u e n t l y are the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). I n a comprehensive review of the l i t e r a t u r e , Buss s t a t e s : 51 f o r m a l s c o r i n g o n t h e R o r s c h a c h d o e s n o t y i e l d m e a s -u r e s t h a t a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y r e l a t e d t o a g g r e s s i o n (p.137)• H o s t i l e c o n t e n t o n t h e R o r s c h a c h a p p a r e n t l y i s r e l a t e d t o a v a r i e t y o f a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r s : a s h o s t i l e c o n t e n t i n -c r e a s e s , t h e m o r e a g g r e s s i v e t h e b e h a v i o r . T h e u s e o f t h e T h e m a t i c A p p e r c e p t i o n T e s t ( T A T ) t o i n -v e s t i g a t e p e r s o n a l i t y a n d s i t u a t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f a g g r e s s i o n h a s l e d t o a n u m b e r o f c o n f u s i n g r e s u l t s . B u s s r e p o r t s t h a t c l i n i c a l s t u d i e s y i e l d o n e c l e a r f i n d i n g : " T A T a g g r e s s i o n i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o a s s a u l t i v e n e s s . . . T A T a g g r e s s i o n i s n o t r e l a t e d t o a s s e r t i v e n e s s , u n c o o p e r a t i v e n e s s a n d o t h e r b e h a v i o r s p e r i p h e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a g g r e s s i o n " (p.l53)« I n c o n c l u s i o n , B u s s s u g g e s t s : " I t w o u l d s e e m t h a t p r o -j e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e s h a v e l i t t l e t o o f f e r c o n c e r n i n g m e a s u r e m e n t o f a g g r e s s i o n t h a t c o u l d n o t b e s u p p l i e d b y s e l f - r e p o r t t e c h -n i q u e s l i k e i n v e n t o r i e s " (p.l55)« S e l f - r e p o r t I n v e n t o r i e s A s a n i n t r o d u c t i o n , m o s t o f t h e a g g r e s s i v e s c a l e s ( o r s u b -s c a l e s ) h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d f o r u s e w i t h m e n t a l p a t i e n t s o r d i s t u r b e d a s o l e s c e n t s . M a n y c a n b e u s e d w i t h " n o r m a l s " b u t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s h a s a c l i n i c a l e m p h a s i s . T h e s c a l e s / i n v e n t o r i e s r e v i e w e d b e l o w a r e t h o s e w h i c h i n d i c a t e t h e y c o n t a i n a g g r e s s i o n / h o s t i l i t y s c a l e s . O t h e r s , s u c h a s t h e M i n n e s o t a M u l t i - p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y ( M M P I ) " a n d . t h e 52 S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l t i y Factor Questionnaire (16 PF) are used to measure aggression, but are not included i n t h i s review as they do not c o n t a i n scales l a b e l l e d as such. The i n f o r m a t i o n presented below, unless otherwise i n d i c a t e d , has been e x t r a c t -ed from the Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook (Buros., 1972). The A d j e c t i v e C h e c k l i s t (Gough & He i l b r u n , 19^5) contains 24 s c a l e s , one of which i s l a b e l l e d aggression. Examples of a d j e c t i v e s from t h i s s c a l e are: aggressive, argumentative, b i t t e r , b l u s t r y , impatient, t a c t l e s s , unkind and v i n d i c t i v e . In Buros, no normative data i s presented. A mean t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of .54 (range: .01-.86) i s given f o r a sample of 140 men. With regard to v a l i d i t y , the ACL i s i n f l u e n c e d by response s t y l e , and the s c a l e s i n t e r c o r r e l a t e more h i g h l y w i t h themselves than w i t h an e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n such as the MMPI or the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). The Clyde Mood Scale (out of p r i n t ) has been used to assess changes i n behavior which are drug induced. Aggres-siveness i s one of s i x s c a l e s . Only group scores ( w i t h i n i n s t i t u t i o n s ) can be obtained. No v a l i d i t y evidence, norma-t i v e data or adequate r e l i a b i l i t i e s are reported. The Dynamic P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory i s f o r experimental and research use only (not s t a t e d as such i n the D i s t r i b u t o r ' s Catalogue). 'The inventory i s p s y c h o a n a l y t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d : o r a l aggression i s one of the 33 subscales. Norms are pro-vided f o r male and female "general" p o p u l a t i o n and n e u r o t i c s . 53 No v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y data are reported. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) contains an aggression s c a l e (15 s c a l e s t o t a l ) . No normative or r e -l i a b i l i t y data are c i t e d i n Buros. I n h i s review of the schedule, H e i l b r u n s t a t e s : While the scanty evidence of v a l i d i t y lends con-s i d e r a b l e s c e p t i c i s m to any recommendations of i t s use, n e i t h e r i s there hard evidence t h a t i t does not have some p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y (p. 14-8). The G u i l d f o r d - H o l l e y L Inventory (L for?Leadership) i s intended f o r use w i t h c o l l e g e students and a d u l t s . Five scores can be c a l c u l a t e d : aggression i s one of them. An example of an aggressive item i s "You p r e f e r chewy' types of candy such as t a f f y and caramel to other types" (p.181). No v a l i d i t y data i s reported; the s c a l e as seen by the example above may even have questionable face v a l i d i t y . I n t e r n a l consistency of the scales i s adequate (.60 to .80) w i t h low i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the s c a l e s , suggesting they tap at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y independent behaviors. Due to the lac k of v a l i d i t y evidence, or adequate norms, i t i s suggested t h i s inventory be used only as a research t o o l . The I n p a t i e n t M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l P s y c h i a t r i c Scale i s f o r use (as the t i t l e i m p l i e s ) w i t h h o s p i t a l i z e d p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . H o s t i l e B e l l i g e r e n c e i s one of the 10 subscales. The s c a l e appears to have adequate v a l i d i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y and normative data. 54 The H o s t i l i t y and D i r e c t i o n of H o s t i l i t y Questionnaire; P e r s o n a l i t y and Personal I l l n e s s Questionnaires i s f o r use w i t h mental p a t i e n t s and normals. A l l 51 items on the s c a l e are from the MMPI. Seven aggression scores are p o s s i b l e : i n t r o p u n i t i v e ( s e l f - c r i t i c i s m , g u i l t ) , e x t r a p u n i t i v e (urge to act out of h o s t i l i t y , c r i t i c i s m of others, p r o j e c t e d d e l u s i o n -a l h o s t i l i t y ) , t o t a l h o s t i l i t y and d i r e c t i o n of h o s t i l i t y . Norms and r e l i a b i l i t y data ( t e s t - r e t e s t ) are provided f o r small samples (e.g. r e l i a b i l i t y - 15 men and 15 women r e t e s t e d a f t e r one y e a r ) . V a l i d i t y evidence i s based p r i m a r i l y on r e -s u l t s of a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s which p a r t i a l l y support the r a t i o n -a l e used i n s c a l e development; no f u r t h e r evidence (e.g. w i t h an e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n ) i s presented. Other s c a l e s include the Personal O r i e n t a t i o n Inventory (acceptance of aggression), Psychotic Impatient P r o f i l e (hos-t i l e b e l l i g e r e n c e ) , WLW Personal A t t i t u d e Inventory (Aggres-s i v e n e s s ) , and the S t r u c t u r e d C l i n i c a l Interview (Anger-H o s t i l i t y ) . One of the most commonly used s c a l e s i s the Buss-Durkee H o s t i l i t y Inventory (BDHI; 1957) which purports to measure f i v e types of aggression ( a s s a u l t i v e , i n d i r e c t h o s t i l i t y , i r -r i t a b i l i t y , negativism, v e r b a l h o s t i l i t y ) and two types of h o s t i l i t y ( s u s p i c i o n and resentment). Normative data i s pre-sented f o r 85 c o l l e g e men and 85 c o l l e g e women. The v a l i d i t y evidence r e s t s p r i m a r i l y on the r e s u l t s of a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s which y i e l d e d two f a c t o r s : aggression and h o s t i l i t y . I n 55 another study, the BDHI was not found to c o r r e l a t e w i t h a "behavioral measure of aggression ( L e i b o w i t z , I968). No r e l i -a b i l i t y data are reported. Unfortunately, the s c a l e i s cor-r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ( s cale not r e -ported) (r= . 2 7 f o r men and r=.30 f o r women). Be h a v i o r a l Measures of Aggression Most b e h a v i o r a l research on aggression has occurred w i t h -i n a l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g . This has been a d i f f i c u l t task f o r researchers. F i r s t l y , aggressive behavior i s considered s o c i a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e , and o b t a i n i n g a "true" measure of a subject's aggression has been d i f f i c u l t , due to a r t i f a c t s such as acquiesence, s o c i a l i n h i b i t i o n , d e s i r e to please the e x p e r i -menter, and a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g . To minimize the i n f l u e n c e of such a r t i f a c t s , s e v e r a l approaches have been used. One such approach has been to make the l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n as r e a l , or as close to an everyday s i t u a t i o n , as p o s s i b l e . Another has been to present a con-t r i v e d or a r t i f i c i a l s i t u a t i o n and have the subject r o l e p l a y aggressive behavior. The assumption und e r l y i n g t h i s technique i s t hat the subject w i l l become i n v o l v e d i n the s i t u a t i o n and d i s p l a y h i s " t r u e " aggression. The most common l a b o r a t o r y technique i n the b e h a v i o r a l measurement of aggression has been to e l i c i t aggression through provocation by the experimenter or confederate. Provocations used have included v e r b a l derogation, sneering, laughing at 56 subjects or f r u s t r a t i n g the subject using techniques such as wi t h h o l d i n g a r e i n f o r c e r or s e t t i n g up a "no-win" s i t u a t i o n . One problem encountered i n comparing the e f f i c a c y of these techniques or the r e s u l t s of studi e s a r i s e s from v a r i a t i o n i n the type of provocation or i n i t s i n t e n s i t y . Another f a c t o r which makes comparisons among st u d i e s d i f f i c u l t i s the type of opportunity f o r subject r e t a l i a t i o n . A common method has been to provide an aggression i n s t i g a t i n g experience and a l l o w the subject to r e t a l i a t e v i a w r i t t e n or v e r b a l statements or e v a l u a t i o n s . Knutson (1977, p«5) has elaborated on the advantages of using t h i s technique; minimal p o s s i b i l i t y of harm to p a r t i c i p a n t s , e a s i l y q u a n t i f i a b l e de-pendent measures of aggression, and reducing the i n f l u e n c e of s o c i a l i n h i b i t i o n . Other techniques have in c l u d e d p r o v i d i n g subjects w i t h an opportunity to r e l e a s e aggression towards inanimate ob-j e c t s , or persons. Perhaps the most common approach to the b e h a v i o r a l assess-ment of aggression i n the l a b o r a t o r y has been t h a t of d i r e c t p h y s i c a l aggression. This method i n v o l v e s d e c e i v i n g subjects i n t o t h i n k i n g they can p h y s i c a l l y harm another person i n some way without f e a r of r e t a l i a t i o n . This procedure has become a prominent method because i t permits the d i r e c t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p h y s i c a l a s s a u l t ; the form of aggression considered most dangerous by many researchers (Knutson, 1977, p.54). The Buss Aggression Machine (BAM; Buss, 1961) i s a f r e e -response instrument which, as f a r as the subject i s concerned, allows f o r d e l i v e r y of a shock to another person. I t i s c a l l e d free-response because the subject b e l i e v e s he i s f r e e to choose the l e v e l of shock i n t e n s i t y and the d u r a t i o n — t h u s two dependent measures of aggression are obtained. Although many st u d i e s have used the BAM, few st u d i e s have concentrated s p e c i f i c a l l y on the v a l i d i t y of t h i s technique. According to Leibowitz (1968) "evidence d e r i v i n g from a number of independent s t u d i e s c o n t r i b u t e s to the formation of a network of c o n s t r u c t v a l i d a t i o n a l evidence f o r the BAM as a measure of aggression i n a d u l t s ..." (p.21). Wolfe and Baron (1971).found the BAM to d i s c r i m i n a t e between i n d i v i d u a l s known to be high and low on aggressive behavior. S i m i l a r l y , Shemberg, L e v i n t h a l and Allman ( c i t e d i n Baron, 1977, p«57) and Hartman ( c i t e d i n Baron, 1977, P«57) found the BAM to d i s c r i m i n a t e between teen-agers judged to be high or low on aggression. Taylor has developed an i n t e r e s t i n g v a r i a t i o n of the use of shock machines i n which the v i c t i m i s able to r e t a l i a t e a gainst the aggressor. The subject and confederate are t o l d they w i l l be competing on a reac t i o n - t i m e task; the l o s e r r e -ceives a shock, the i n t e n s i t y of which i s s e t beforehand by the opponent. Un l i k e Buss, Taylor used r e a l shocks i n h i s e x p e r i -ments, and the v i c t i m i s not " h e l p l e s s " — h e can r e t a l i a t e ! D i r e c t v a l i d i t y evidence on t h i s technique has not been reported; however, some i n d i r e c t evidence i s a v a i l a b l e , . For 58 example, when the confederate acts i n a provocative manner ( i . e . choosing a high shock l e v e l ) the subject responds by s e t t i n g higher shock l e v e l s (O'Leary & Dengerink, 1973)• I n the presence of a disapproving audience, the subjects set lower shock l e v e l s (Borden, 1975). No i n f o r m a t i o n on whether t h i s technique provides a measure of competition or aggression was reported. F i e l d Studies Other techniques are used which attempt to study aggres-s i o n i n an unobtrusive or n a t u r a l i s t i c manner. These tech-niques have i n c l u d e d horn honking i n t r a f f i c s i t u a t i o n s to o b t a i n unsuspecting m o t o r i s t s ' r e a c t i o n s , performing o f f e n s i v e a c t s , such as bumping i n t o people, b u t t i n g i n a l i n e and r a t i n g the person ( v i c t i m ) on t h e i r response. CONCLUSION This chapter has provided the reader w i t h an overview of the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e on a s s e r t i o n and aggression. Although an attempt has been made to examine f a c t o r s i n i s o l a t i o n , the reader should r e a l i z e t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s : t h e o r e t i c a l and conceptual d i f f i c u l t i e s r e l a t e to the problem of d e f i n i n g and i s o l a t i n g components of a s s e r t i o n and aggression, which i n t u r n have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the measurement of these con-s t r u c t s . C H A P T E R I I P U R P O S E O F T H E S T U D Y C h a p t e r I d i s c u s s e d t h e b a c k g r o u n d t o t h e p r o b l e m i n t e r m s o f c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , d e f i n i t i o n a n d m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e t w o c o n s t r u c t s : a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n . C h a p t e r I I p r e -s e n t s t h e r a t i o n a l e , p u r p o s e a n d o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e s t u d y , a n d p r o v i d e s o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f t e r m s u s e d i n t e x t . R A T I O N A L E F O R T H E S T U D Y T h e n e e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e a s s e r t i o n f r o m a g g r e s s i o n h a s b e e n c i t e d b y p r o m i n e n t r e s e a r c h e r s . J a k u b o w s k i (1978) s t a t e d " b e c a u s e a g g r e s s i o n a n d a s s e r t i o n a r e o f t e n c o n f u s e d . . . " ( p .77); D a w l e y a n d W e n r i c h (1976) c o n s i d e r e d : " o n e o f t h e m o s t c o m m o n e s t m i s u s e s o f t h e w o r d Caggression3 i s a s a s y n o -n y m f o r a s s e r t i v e n e s s " ( p .23). N e i g e r (1978) s a i d : " a s a s s e r f i v e b e h a v i o r b e c a m e m o r e i n v o g u e , i t b e c a m e m o r e a n d m o r e m i s u n d e r s t o o d " ( p . 3 ) . T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i r e c t o r y o f A s s e r -t i v e B e h a v i o r T r a i n i n g (1976) s t a t e d : W i t h t h e i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a r i t y o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v -i o r t r a i n i n g , a q u a l i t y o f " f a d d i s h n e s s " h a s b e -c o m e e v i d e n t , a n d t h e r e a r e f r e q u e n t r e p o r t s o f e t h i c a l l y i r r e s p o n s i b l e p r a c t i c e s ( a n d p r a c t i t i o n e r s ) . We h e a r o f t r a i n e r s w h o , f o r e x a m p l e d o n o t a d e -q u a t e l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n ( p . 3 ) . I t i s u n c l e a r f r o m t h i s w h e t h e r t h e t r a i n e r s t h e m s e l v e s w e r e n o t a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e a s s e r t i o n f r o m a g g r e s s i o n o r w h e t h e r 6o they f a i l e d to i n d i c a t e the d i s t i n c t i o n to the c l i e n t e l e . Other evidence suggests that even when the two c o n s t r u c t s were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , i n d i v i d u a l s e n r o l l e d i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g groups have d i f f i c u l t y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between and ex-p r e s s i n g a s s e r t i v e and aggressive behaviors (Lange, Rimm, & Loxley, 1975; M c F a l l & L i l l e s a n d , 1970). Lange and Jakubowski (1976) suggested that i n d i v i d u a l s act u n a s s e r t i v e l y because they mistake f i r m a s s e r t i o n f o r aggression: The c u l t u r e at l a r g e has not d i s t i n g u i s h e d between a s s e r t i o n and aggression ... Thus, i n d i v i d u a l s mis-l a b e l t h e i r own a s s e r t i v e impulses as dangerous urges which are to be s e v e r e l y c o n t r o l l e d . Women i n p a r t i c u l a r may be t o l d that t h e i r own n a t u r a l a s s e r t i v e behavior i s aggressive and masculine (p.21). Osborn and H a r r i s (1975) r e l a t e d t h e i r concerns: When women are i n i t i a l l y exposed to a s s e r t i v e t r a i n -i n g , they evidence concern about l e a r n i n g to d i f -f e r e n t i a t e between a s s e r t i o n and aggression. Often they express the s p e c i f i c f e a r of becoming more v i o l e n t , d e s t r u c t i v e , and h o s t i l e (p.25). Although the authors very c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d a need to d i f f e r -e n t i a t e between a s s e r t i o n and aggression, they went on to s t a t e : Recent t h e o r i s t s have adopted the p o s i t i o n that aggression and a s s e r t i o n are both v i t a l elements f o r s u r v i v a l ... These newer trends remove the stigma and f e a r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h aggressive behav-i o r and permit greater f l e x i b i l i t y f o r women l e a r n i n g a s s e r t i v e s k i l l s . As healthy forms of aggression become more s o c i a l l y acceptable f o r women, they w i l l have a wider r e p e t o i r e of be-haviors from which to choose (p.36). 61 T h i s s t a t e m e n t l e a d s t h e p r e s e n t a u t h o r t o " b e l i e v e t h a t O s b o r n a n d H a r r i s c o n s i d e r a s s e r t i o n t o "be a f o r m o f a g g r e s s i o n . I f t h i s i s t h e c a s e , w h a t i s t h e n e c e s s i t y o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h e m ? A s J a k u b o w s k i (1978) i n d i c a t e d , t h e c u l t u r e a t l a r g e h a s n o t d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n , t h u s i t s e e m s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e s t i g m a o f a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r h a s b e e n r e m o v e d . P o p u l a r m a g a z i n e s a n d b o o k s h a v e a l s o f a i l e d t o d i s t i n -g u i s h t h e c o n s t r u c t s . F o r e x a m p l e , R a t h u s ( c i t e d i n W h i t e l y & F l o w e r s , 1978) q u o t e d a n i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a n A T e x p e r i m e n t h e f o u n d i n a p o p u l a r ^ j o u r n a l : L e a r n t o k i c k d o w n d o o r s w h e n y o u r k n o c k i s n ' t a c k n o w l e d g e d i m m e d i a t e l y . G i v e w a i t r e s s e s a n a n g r y l e c t u r e w h e n t h a t s e c o n d c u p o f c o f f e e i s n ' t t h e r e w h e n y o u w a n t i t . I f y o u h a t e t h e s i g h t o f y o u r b o s s , d o n ' t h e s i t a t e t o l e t h i m k n o w . A n d w h e n s o m e o n e a s k s y o u t o g e t o f f h i s f o o t , a s k h i m w h y ( p . 4 8 ) . M o r e r e c e n t l y , P l a y b o y ( F e b r u a r y , 1979f p«183) i l l u s t r a t e d a n i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t w o m e n i n a b a r w i t h t h e c a p t i o n : " O h , y e a h ? W e l l , my_ a s s e r t i v e n e s s s e m i n a r c a n l i c k y o u r a s s e r -t i v e n e s s s e m i n a r a n y d a y ! " N e i g e r (1978) c o m m e n t e d o n W h e n I S a y N o I F e e l G u i l t y , a b o o k w r i t t e n b y M a n u e l S m i t h : T h e c u l m i n a t i o n o f t h i s r e g r e t t a b l e t r e n d o c c u r r e d i n 1975 w i t h t h e m o s t u n f o r t u n a t e b e s t s e l l e r " W h e n I S a y N o I F e e l G u i l t y " b y M a n u e l S m i t h w h i c h i s f u l l o f e v e n c r u d e r a n d m o r e o f f e n s i v e t e c h n i q u e s t h a n t h e o n e s f r o m t h e i n f a n c y o f a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g , 62 and indeed appears to be a p r e s c r i p t i o n , i n many s i t u a t i o n s , on how to los e f r i e n d s and get people's backs up again s t you (p.3). Whitely and Flowers (1978) suggested that: Authors (of books on a s s e r t i o n ) are c a p i t a l i z i n g on the p o p u l a r i t y of "being a s s e r t i v e , " and yet are presenting techniques or b e h a v i o r a l responses which are h i g h l y manipulative i n the negative sense of the word. The other person's personal r i g h t s are v i o l a t e d or he/she i s embarassed or put down (p.4). The p o p u l a r i z a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g seems to have r e s u l t -ed i n some pressure to s a n c t i o n i n t e r p e r s o n a l aggression as being a s s e r t i o n . S e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s e from f a i l i n g to d i s t i n g u i s h the two c o n s t r u c t s . F i r s t l y , p r o f e s s i o n a l AT groups may be d i s c r e d i t e d on the basis that they are designed to teach or increase aggressive behavior. As i n d i c a t e d i n the IDABT, t h i s may already be o c c u r r i n g . Second, i f a p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t views a s s e r t i o n and aggres-s i o n synonmously, s/he may be more l i k e l y to think of asser-t i o n as unreasonable, and ther e f o r e be i n h i b i t e d from p a r t i c i -p a t i n g i n workshops or from a c q u i r i n g a s s e r t i v e behaviors (Hollandsworth, 1977)- Assertiveness workshops w i l l be of l i t t l e value i f the c l i e n t i s a f r a i d of becoming aggressive. This may be p a r t i c u l a r l y true f o r women: ... i f the t h e r a p i s t has f a i l e d to c l e a r l y d i s -t i n g u i s h between a s s e r t i o n and aggression, some of the women may r e j e c t t h i s t r a i n i n g because they a s s o c i a t e both a s s e r t i o n and aggression w i t h m a s c u l i n i t y and they may g r e a t l y f e a r t h a t 63 A T w i l l c a u s e t h e m t o l o s e t h e i r f e m i n i n i t y . I n w o r k i n g w i t h w o m e n i t i s e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e s e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e c a r e f u l l y d r a w n ( J a k u b o w s k i , 1978, p.79). T h i r d , t h e r e i s a g r o w i n g b o d y o f w h i c h e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t A T i s e f f e c t i v e i n t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v -i o r s ( R i m m , H i l l , B r o w n & S t u a r t , 197^; F o y , E i s l e r & P i n k -s t o n , 1975; W a l l a c e , T e i g e n , L i b e r m a n & B a k e r , 1975; W a l t o n & M a t h e r , 1963). I f t h e u s e o f t h e t w o t e r m s i s c o n f u s e d , t h i s c o u l d d e c r e a s e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h i s t r e a t m e n t f o r r e d u c i n g a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r . T h e n e e d t o s e p a r a t e a n d c l a r i f y t h e t w o c o n s t r u c t s h a s b e e n c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d . T h e p r o c e s s o f a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h i s , h o w e v e r , b e c o m e s s o m e w h a t m o r e d i f f i c u l t . G a l a s s i (1978) h a s r e c e n t l y m a d e a c o m m e n t w h i c h a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e f l e c t s t h i s p r o -b l e m : P e r h a p s i t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h e t e r m a s s e r t i v e n e s s w a s e v e r i n t r o d u c e d t o b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . . . W h e n b e h a v i o r t h e r a p i s t s a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y a n d t o a s s e s s a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r , t h e y i n v o k e s u b j e c t i v e b i a s e s a n d v a l u e j u d g m e n t s m o r e o f t e n t h a n i n a n y a r e a o f b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . . . A g r e a t d e a l o f e f f o r t i s e x p e n d e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r b e -h a v i o r i s a s s e r t i v e a n d i s t h e r e f o r e a p p r o p r i a t e , a g g r e s s i v e a n d t h e r e f o r e s o c i a l l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e , o r n o n a s s e r t i v e a n d t h e r e f o r e s o c i a l l y a d a p t i v e b u t p e r s o n a l l y h a r m f u l ( p . 1 3 2 ) . G a l a s s i o f f e r e d t h r e e c r i t e r i a f o r j u d g i n g a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e : C r i t e r i o n 1 " d o e s a p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s e i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n a c c o m p l i s h t h e c l i e n t ' s g o a l s ? " ( p .132) 64 C r i t e r i o n 2 "assuming the c l i e n t l e a r n s the r e -sponse, how s a t i s f i e d or comfortable i s he/she w i t h t h a t p a r t i c u l a r behavior i n the s i t u a t i o n ? " (p.132) C r i t e r i o n 3 "how would a group of observers evaluate the response i n terms of i t s ' impact on others or as s o c i a l adequacy?" (p.132) G a l a s s i ' s c r i t e r i a u n f o r t u n a t e l y do not f a c i l i t a t e d i s -c r i m i n a t i o n of a s s e r t i o n from aggression. With regard to C r i -t e r i o n 1, a gi v e n response may achieve an i n d i v i d u a l ' s goals but the process by which the goals are r e a l i z e d may be aggres-s i v e (e.g. blaming, demeaning) or unassertive (e.g. manipula-t i o n by withdrawal of a r e i n f o r c e r ) . With regard to C r i t e r i o n 2, evidence has been presented p r e v i o u s l y i n t h i s chapter that nonassertive persons ( i . e . aggressive and/or unassertive) have d i f f i c u l t y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g a s s e r t i v e and aggressive responses, persons and/or c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s . I f C r i t e r i o n 2 i s a p p l i e d , and a person behaving a g g r e s s i v e l y t h i n k s s/he i s behaving a s s e r t i v e l y , why would the i n d i v i d u a l be uncomfortable. S i m i l a r l y , when a c q u i r i n g asser-t i v e s k i l l s , an unassertive i n d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y to f e e l some-what uncomfortable u n t i l a s s e r t i v e behavior becomes more es-t a b l i s h e d i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e p e t o i r e of behavior. G a l a s s i ' s t h i r d c r i t e r i o n accentuates one of the b a s i c problems i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the two constructs — judgment as to the s o c i a l appropriateness of the response. With regard to t h i s , Hollandsworth (1977) i n d i c a t e s " i t i s g e n e r a l l y i n t h i s area of expressing c o n f l i c t i n g or opposing needs that 65 a s s e r t i v e n e s s a n d a g g r e s s i v e n e s s a r e c o n f u s e d " (p.349)« A l -t h o u g h a t s o m e p o i n t , b o t h c o n s t r u c t s r e q u i r e e v a l u a t i o n w i t h -i n a s o c i a l c o n t e x t , s u c h j u d g m e n t s a r e b a s e d o n a c t u a l b e -h a v i o r s o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o c c u r r i n g s i n g l y o r s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i n a s i t u a t i o n . H a l l ( c i t e d i n M c R e y n o l d s , 1978) c o m m e n t s o n t h i s a s w e l l : A m a j o r p r o b l e m i n b e h a v i o r a l a s s e s s m e n t o f a s s e r -t i v e n e s s h a s b e e n t h a t o f d e v e l o p i n g a c l e a r d e -l i n e a t i o n o f c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r t o a l l o w o b s e r v e r s t o f o c u s o n i t s e s s e n t i a l c o m p o n -e n t s . T h e p r o b l e m i s c o m p o u n d e d b y t h e i n f l u e n c e o f v a r y i n g s o c i a l c o n t e x t s o n t h e n a t u r e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o r a n d b y v a r y -i n g t y p e s o f b e h a v i o r a l e x p r e s s i o n t h a t h a v e b e e n c a l l e d a s s e r t i v e ( p . 3 3 9 ) . P U R P O S E O F T H E S T U D Y T h e n e e d t o f o c u s o n d e f i n a b l e a n d o b s e r v a b l e v e r b a l a n d n o n v e r b a l b e h a v i o r s i n t h e s t u d y o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n h a s b e e n c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , u n r e s o l v e d i s s u e s s t i l l e x i s t w i t h r e g a r d t o p e r s o n a l i t y c o m p o n e n t s o f e a c h c o n -s t r u c t , a n d s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c i t y o f r e s p o n s e . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y w a s t o i d e n t i f y t h e v e r b a l , b e h a v i o r a l a n d p e r s o n a l i t y c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s -s i o n . A s a m p l e o f C a n a d i a n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s w a s s u r v e y e d a n d a s k e d t o j u d g e d e s c r i p t o r s w i t h i n a s c a l e a s t o t h e i r d e g r e e o f c o n s t r u c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . D e s c r i p t o r s w e r e i n t e n d e d t o r e p r e s e n t c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n , a n d w e r e p r e s e n t e d o u t s i d e o f a s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . 66 O B J E C T I V E S O F T H E S T U D Y T h i s s t u d y h o p e d t o a c c o m p l i s h s e v e r a l o b j e c t i v e s . F i r s t , t h a t t h e v e r b a l , b e h a v i o r a l a n d p e r s o n a l i t y c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n w o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d a n d t h a t t h i s i n -f o r m a t i o n w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t w o c o n s t r u c t s . S e c o n d , t h a t e v i d e n c e o f c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y f o r a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n w o u l d b e p r o v i d e d . T h i r d , t h e o b t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d c o n t r i b u t e n e w a n d v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n . F o u r t h l y , i t w a s h o p e d t h a t t h e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n w o u l d b e v a l i d a t e d . L a s t l y , t h o s e c o m p o n e n t s w h i c h e m p i r i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d t h e c o n s t r u c t s c o u l d b e u s e d t o d e v e l o p a s e l f - r e p o r t r a t i n g s c a l e f o r c l i n i c a l u s e . O P E R A T I O N A L D E F I N I T I O N S O F T E R M S A S S E R T I O N - r e f e r s t o t h e d i r e c t , h o n e s t a n d o p e n e x p r e s -s i o n o f f e e l i n g s , o p i n i o n s o r r i g h t s w h i l e r e -s p e c t i n g t h e s a m e i n o t h e r s . A s s e r t i v e b e h a v -i o r d o e s n o t i n v o l v e m a n i p u l a t i v e o r e x p l o i t a -t i v e b e h a v i o r , a n d i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o h u r t t h e o t h e r p e r s o n . A s s e r t i o n i n v o l v e s a p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e o f s p e e c h C § . g . d i r e c t , f i r m ) , a n d i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s ( e . g . s e l f - c o n f i d e n t , o u t g o i n g ) a n d b e h a v i o r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( e . g . r e l a x e d b o d y p o s i t i o n , d i r e c t e y e c o n t a c t ) . 67 AGGRESSION r e f e r s to expression of oneself i n a way which disregards or v i o l a t e s the r i g h t s of others. This may in c l u d e h u m i l i a t i n g , blaming or "put-t i n g down" the other person. Aggression may be p h y s i c a l (e.g. f i g h t i n g ) or v e r b a l : d i r e c t (aimed at a ta r g e t ) or i n d i r e c t (e.g. g o s s i p i n g , resentment). Aggression i n v o l v e s a p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e of speech (e.g. sarcasm, screaming), and i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r a l compon-ents (e.g. r i g i d body posture, f i s t pounding) and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g. c h r o n i c -a l l y angry, encroaching). UNASSERTIVE r e f e r s to a response, person or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which i s n e i t h e r a s s e r t i v e or aggressive. The use of t h i s term i s synonomous i n meaning w i t h what other authors have c a l l e d passive or sub-mi s s i v e . NONASSERTIVE - r e f e r s to both un a s s e r t i v e and aggressive re-sponses, persons and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS r e f e r s to nonverbal aspects of communication such as body posture, f a c i a l expression, and prox i m i c s . VERBAL COMPONENTS r e f e r s to nonspeech content of communication (e.g. a f f e c t , l a t e n c y of response) and speech content (e.g. sending " I " messages) as w e l l as s t y l e and type of speech used. 6 8 PERSONALITY - r e f e r s to d e s c r i p t o r s of p e r s o n a l i t y compon-TRAITS ents hypothesized to represent p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an a s s e r t i v e or aggressive i n d i v i d u a l . VERBAL - r e f e r to a c t u a l v e r b a l statements or comments STATEMENTS considered to represent t y p i c a l a s s e r t i v e or aggressive s t y l e s of speech or responses. Chapter I I has explained the r a t i o n a l e , purpose and ob-j e c t i v e s of the study. Operational d e f i n i t i o n s of terms used throughout the t e x t have been provided. Chapter I I I i s devoted to a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the procedures employed i n the study-.. C H A P T E R I I I P R O C E D U R E S C h a p t e r I I I d i s c u s s e s t h e p r o c e d u r e s u s e d i n i d e n t i f i c a -t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a n d i n c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n i n s t r u m e n t t o i d e n t i f y c o m p o n e n t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n . T h e f i n a l s e c t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r d i s c u s s e s t h e d a t a a n a l y s e s u s e d i n t h e s t u d y . I D E N T I F I C A T I O N O F T H E P O P U L A T I O N O F A S S E R T I V E N E S S T R A I N E R S / R E S E A R C H E R S  A s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s a r e a ' p o p u l a t i o n ' c o n s i d e r e d t o h a v e k n o w l e d g e o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n , h o t h f r o m a t h e o r e t i c a l a n d a c l i n i c a l p o s i t i o n . P a r t o f m a n y a s -s e r t i v e n e s s w o r k s h o p s i n v o l v e s m a k i n g d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e c o n s t r u c t s f o r c l i e n t s . T h i s s t a t e m e n t i s s u p p o r t e d b y p r e -v i o u s l y c i t e d r e s e a r c h a n d i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n w i t h l o c a l a s -s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s ( V a n c o u v e r , B . C . ) . I t w a s a s s u m e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w h o w o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e m s e l v e s a s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s w o u l d h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e e x p e r t i s e i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t s . U n l i k e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e ' p o p u l a -t i o n ' o f C a n a d i a n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s w a s u n a v a i l a b l e . I t w a s t h u s n e c e s s a r y t o i d e n t i f y t h e ' p o p u l a t i o n . ' 70 This was accomplished using the 'key informant* approach to i d e n t i f y i n g and l o c a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s . This method i n v o l v e d s e v e r a l stages. F i r s t , an i n i t i a l sample of 'key informants' was i d e n t i f i e d and contacted by m a i l . These 'key informants' were asked to a s s i s t "by i d e n t i f y i n g themselves and/or others as a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s . Those w i t h no personal knowledge of t r a i n e r s , were asked to pass the l e t -t e r to other person(s) whom they "believed would have such i n -formation. On the "basis of i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by respondents, new i n d i v i d u a l s / c e n t r e s were i d e n t i f i e d and contacted by m a i l . F i n a l l y , each i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i f i e d as a member of the popula-t i o n of a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s was sent a l e t t e r and questionnaire to v e r i f y h i s / h e r involvement. The e n t i r e procedure was conducted i n seven stages which are described below. Stage 1 The f i r s t stage i n v o l v e d i d e n t i f y i n g a sample of key informants across Canada who would l i k e l y be a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s or have personal knowledge of such i n d i v i d -uals . S e v e r a l sources were used to c o n s t r u c t the sample of key informants: A. The Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n D i r e c t o r y (1978). I n d i v i d u a l s were s e l e c t e d by one or more of the f o l l o w -i n g c r i t e r i a : 71 (1) s t a t e d areas of p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t — e m p h a s i s i n s e l e c t i o n was p l a c e d on those who s t a t e d one or more of the f o l l o w i n g areas of i n t e r e s t : (a (b (c (d (e ( f (g i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s group c o u n s e l l i n g f a m i l y c o u n s e l l i n g i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g psychology of women psychology of men communication ( i i ) s t a t e d employment s e t t i n g — e m p h a s i s i n s e l e c t i o n was p l a c e d on those working i n : (a) community c o l l e g e s (b) u n i v e r s i t y c o u n s e l l i n g s e r v i c e s (c) p r i v a t e p r a c t i c e (d) s o c i a l s e r v i c e s (e) community s e t t i n g s ( i i i ) s t a t e d p r o f e s s i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n - - e m p h a s i s i n selec-t i o n was p l a c e d on those who d e f i n e d themselves p r o f e s s i o n a l l y as: (a) h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l , (b) c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t , or (c) c o u n s e l l o r . 72 ( i v ) a l l women who l i s t e d themselves i n the D i r e c t o r y as Ms. and st a t e d r e l e v a n t i n t e r e s t s or employ-ment s e t t i n g were also i n c l u d e d i n the sample., B. U n i v e r s i t i e s / C o l l e g e s A sample of Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s and co l l e g e s was s e l e c t e d from U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges i n Canada (1976) using one or more of the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : (a) p r o x i m i t y to major c i t i e s (b) existence of Psychology Departments or r e l a t e d Departments ( C l i n i c a l Psychology, Edu c a t i o n a l Psychology, or Counselling' Psychology) (c) existence of student c o u n s e l l i n g f a c i l i t y or equivalent s e r v i c e . I f (b) and (c) e x i s t e d w i t h i n the same i n s t i t u t i o n , both Departments were contacted. C. Women's O r g a n i z a t i o n s — a sample of women's groups/organ-i z a t i o n s was s e l e c t e d from the D i r e c t o r y of Women's Groups (1977) on the b a s i s of the d e s c r i p t i o n of s e r v i c e s o f f e r -ed: e.g., courses, workshops, edu c a t i o n a l and conscious-ness r a i s i n g groups. Both p r o v i n c i a l and n a t i o n a l groups were inc l u d e d i n the sample. D. Mental Health Centres ( B r i t i s h Columbia o n l y ) . A r o s t e r of B.C. Mental Health Centres was obtained from the M i n i s t r y of Health i n V i c t o r i a , B.C. A l l Mental Health Centres were included i n the sample. 73 E. A d d i t i o n a l l y , any i n d i v i d u a l s known to the researcher to be inv o l v e d i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g / r e s e a r c h were inc l u d e d i n the sample of key informants. This group inc l u d e d s o c i a l workers, high school teachers, an i n d u s t r i a l c o n s u l t a n t , and p s y c h o l o g i s t s not r e g i s t e r e d w i t h the CPA. Table 1 i l l u s t r a t e s the sample composition of key inform-ants by province and source. Stage 2 When the l i s t of key informants was completed, a l e t t e r was composed i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the goal was to b u i l d a Canadian po p u l a t i o n of as s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s (Appendix A). Key informants were asked to a s s i s t i n t h i s task by forward-i n g : ( i ) the names of any i n d i v i d u a l s whom they knew to be engaged i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g / r e s e a r c h , ( i i ) the names of any centres sponsoring or con-ducting assertiveness workshops, and ( i i i ) any known l i s t s of ass e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / researchers i n t h e i r c i t y , d i s t r i c t or province. Key informants w i t h no knowledge of ( i ) , ( i i ) , or ( i i i ) above were requested to pass the l e t t e r on to someone whom they b e l i e v e d would have such i n f o r m a t i o n . The number of un-tracea b l e returns (N=38) i n d i c a t e d that informants d i d i n f a c t pass the l e t t e r on to others. Table 1 Composition of Canadian Key Informant Sample Province S o u r c e T o t a l b CPA D i r e c t o r y U n i v e r s i t i e s / Colleges a Women's Groups Mental Health Centres Known Contacts B r i t i s h Columbia 21 6 (10) 27 32 9 99 A l b e r t a 11 4 ( 9) 7 5 32 Saskatchewan 12 2 ( 4) 7 23 Manitoba 6 3 "( 7) 6 19 Ontario 56 21 (34) 39 129 Quebec 29 6 (12) 17 58 Newfoundland 6 1 ( 3) 5 14 New Brunswick 9 5 (10) 6 25 Nova S c o t i a 5 3 ( 6) 5 16 Prince Edward I s l a n d 2 1 ( 2) 2 6 T o t a l 157 52° 97 121 32 14 421 Numbers i n parentheses r e f e r to number of contacts made at the u n i v e r s i t y / c o l l e g e . Numbers without parentheses i n d i c a t e number of u n i v e r s i t i e s and colleges contacted. •Total ' column i n d i c a t e s t o t a l contacts made i n each province. This column i s not included i n row t o t a l . 75 Each m a i l out to key informants c o n s i s t e d of a form l e t -t e r and r e t u r n envelope. As i n d i c a t e d i n Table 1, 421 l e t t e r s were mailed. The remaining f i v e stages of c o n s t r u c t i n g the 'population' of a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s were conducted on a s e q u e n t i a l b a s i s ; that i s , the next l e v e l of processing was determined by such f a c t o r s as whether i n i t i a l correspondence was returned, and the type of i n f o r m a t i o n provided i n r e p l i e s . Stage 3 As correspondence was r e c e i v e d , each r e p l y was checked on the i n i t i a l m a i l out l i s t as having been r e c e i v e d . Those r e -turns considered untraceable ( i . e . whose names d i d not appear on the i n i t i a l m a i l out l i s t ) , and l e t t e r s returned were r e -corded s e p a r a t e l y . A l l names of ass e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s s u p p l i e d by key informants were recorded by province and assigned a f i v e d i g i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. These i n d i v i d u a l s then be-came part of the p o t e n t i a l sample p o o l . A l l centres i d e n t i f i e d i n the f i r s t m a i l out were sent the i n i t i a l key informant l e t t e r . Stage 4 Approximately s i x weeks a f t e r the i n i t i a l m a i l i n g , a follow-up l e t t e r w i t h p e r s o n a l i z e d s a l u t a t i o n was sent to a l l 76 key informants on the i n i t i a l l i s t who had not responded (Appendix B). For convenience of r e p l y , and to prompt a higher r e t u r n r a t e , a stamped s e l f - r e t u r n envelope was i n c l u d -ed. As compared to the 2)\% r e t u r n r a t e obtained from the i n i t i a l m a i l i n g , the follow-up l e t t e r accounted f o r an a d d i t i o n -a l ^lfo, bringing the o v e r a l l useable r e t u r n r a t e to 65%. Table 2 i l l u s t r a t e s the number and percentage of useable returns by province. The r e t u r n r a t e by sample source i s presented i n Appendix C. Stage 5 A l l i n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f i e d by key informants as a s s e r t i v e -ness t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s were then sent a questionnaire to v e r i f y t h e i r involvement. Each m a i l out con s i s t e d of a p e r s o n a l i z e d l e t t e r (Appendix D), a two-page 'Demographic Information Sheet' (Appendix E ) , and a stamped s e l f - r e t u r n envelope. The l e t t e r explained that the purpose of the Demographic Information Sheet was to a s s i s t i n b u i l d i n g and s t r a t i f y i n g the po p u l a t i o n of Canadian a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s . I n d i v i d u a l s were requested to complete the Information Sheet and r e t u r n i t so they could be included i n t h i s p o p u l a t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , they were asked to provide names of other t r a i n -ers/researchers whom they knew to be i n v o l v e d , i n order to b u i l d the po p u l a t i o n . 77 T a b l e 2 N u m b e r o f R e t u r n s a n d P e r c e n t a g e o f U s e a b l e R e t u r n s b y P r o v i n c e i n R e s p o n s e t o t h e I n i t i a l K e y I n f o r m a n t L e t t e r P r o v i n c e T o t a l S e n t O u t T o t a l R e s p o n s e s T o t a l R e t u r n e d U n o p e n e d U s e a b l e R e t u r n R a t e { % ) a B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 99 64 5 68 A l b e r t a 32 19 2 66 S a s k a t c h e w a n 23 13 2 62 M a n i t o b a 19 9 3 56 O n t a r i o 129 75 13 65 Q u e b e c 58 32 7 63 N e w f o u n d l a n d 14 8 0 57 N e w B r u n s w i c k 25 11 1 46 N o v a S c o t i a 16 16 1 100 P r i n c e E d w a r d I s l a n d 6 4 0 67 T o t a l N u m b e r o f L e t t e r s 421 251 34 U s e a b l e r e t u r n r a t e : T o t a l R e s p o n s e s x l O O T o t a l s e n t o u t - R e t u r n e d u n o p e n e d The Demographic Information Sheet co n s i s t e d of two pages; i t s purpose was to examine v a r i a b l e s r e l e v a n t to s t r a t i f i c a -t i o n and to provide biodemographic i n f o r m a t i o n on the i d e n t i -f i e d p o p u l a t i o n . A summary of the r e s u l t i n g demographic s u r -vey i s i n Chapter IV. Stage 6 Approximately two and one-half weeks a f t e r the l e t t e r and Information Sheets had been sent to t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s , a p e r s o n a l i z e d follow-up l e t t e r w i t h a stamped s e l f - r e t u r n en-velope was sent to a l l nonrespondents (Appendix F ) . Stage 7 I n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f i e d by a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s i n r e -sponse to the questionnaire were entered on the p o t e n t i a l sample l i s t and assigned a f i v e - d i g i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. They were then sent a v e r i f i c a t i o n l e t t e r and Information Sheet. Approximately two and one-half weeks l a t e r , they were sent the follow-up l e t t e r (Stage 6). The r e t u r n r a t e of the questionnaire from the f i r s t m a i l -ing was ?6f°t and from the follow-up 9%, b r i n g i n g the t o t a l useable r e t u r n r a t e to 85$. Table 3 presents the number and p r o p o r t i o n of useable returns by province. 79 Table 3 Number of Returns and Percentage of Useable Returns by Province i n Response to Demographic Information Sheet Province Information Sheets Sent Out Information Sheets Completed Returned Unopened Useable Return Rate {%) a B r i t i s h Columbia 82 72 88 A l b e r t a 24 22 92 Saskatchewan 24 21 88 Manitoba 20 15 2 83 Ontario 116 99 85 Quebec 38 28 3 80 Newfoundland 19 15 79 New Brunswick 11 8 73 Nova S c o t i a 18 15 83 Prince Edward I s l a n d 1 1 100 T o t a l 353 296 a Useable r e t u r n r a t e = Information Sheets Completed ± Information Sheets Sent Out-Returned Unopened 80 Summary of Pop u l a t i o n I d e n t i f i c a t i o n I n response to l e t t e r s sent to key informants, a useable r e t u r n r a t e of 65$ was obtained. Throughout t h i s stage, 29 centres s a i d to be sponsoring a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g workshops were contacted; 14 r e p l i e s were r e c e i v e d (48$). The key informant m a i l i n g produced no known l i s t i n g of a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s anywhere i n Canada. With regard to the v e r i f i c a t i o n stages, an 85$ o v e r a l l useable r e t u r n r a t e was obtained. The s e c t i o n provided i n the Demographic Information Sheet f o r i d e n t i f y i n g other t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s y i e l d e d some i n t e r e s t i n g d e s c r i p t i v e i n d i c a t i o n s of 'completeness' of the 'population.' These w i l l be discussed i n Chapter IV. F i n a l Sample Due to the small number of t r a i n e r s i n some provinces (Table 4), and on the b a s i s of questionnaire a n a l y s i s (Chapter I V ) , a d e c i s i o n was made to d i s t r i b u t e the f i n a l m a t e r i a l s to a l l i n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f i e d . With the exception of 11 t r a i n e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a p r e - t e s t (discussed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n ) , each person who reported involvement i n ass e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g or research on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and who d i d not miss the m a i l i n g deadline was included i n the f i n a l m a i l i n g . 81 Table 4 Number of I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n Each Province who were sent F i n a l Data T o t a l I n d i c a t e d T o t a l T o t a l Involvement on 'New'- Sent Province Information Sheet Not V e r i f i e d Out B r i t i s h Columbia 61 4 65 A l b e r t a 20 2 22 Saskatchewan 19 19 Manitoba 14 1 • 15 Ontario 89 8 97 Quebec 26 5 31 Newfoundland 15 1 16 New Brunswick 8 1 9 Nova S c o t i a 15 3 18 P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d 1 1 T o t a l 268 25 293 A d d i t i o n a l l y , 25 others whose names had "been provided "by t r a i n e r s (on the Information Sheet) c l o s e to the f i n a l data m a i l i n g and who had not p r e v i o u s l y v e r i f i e d t h e i r i n -volvement were included i n the f i n a l m a i l i n g . A copy of the Information Sheet was sent w i t h t h e i r data. Each m a i l out c o n s i s t e d of a p e r s o n a l i z e d explanatory l e t t e r , the s c a l e and a stamped s e l f - r e t u r n envelope. The r e t u r n r a t e f o r f i n a l data i s discussed i n Chapter IV. 83 SCALE CONSTRUCTION This s e c t i o n discusses methodology r e l e v a n t to s c a l e con-s t r u c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g items and r a t i n g s c a l e format, f o r "both the p i l o t and f i n a l v e rsions of the s c a l e . P i l o t Scale Items The i n i t i a l stages of b u i l d i n g an item pool i n v o l v e d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the components of a s s e r t i o n and aggression. This was accomplished by pe r u s a l of the t h e o r e t i c a l and e x p e r i -mental l i t e r a t u r e on the c o n s t r u c t s . P o t e n t i a l items came from s e v e r a l sources w i t h i n the l i t -e r ature, i n c l u d i n g components i d e n t i f i e d by as s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s on l o g i c a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l bases, and on e m p i r i c a l bases by other b e h a v i o r a l researchers. P o t e n t i a l items were a l s o extracted from s c a l e s p u r p o r t i n g to measure the c o n s t r u c t s , and from research c i t e d i n secondary sources such as reviews. At t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y stage, the i n t e n t was to define and opera-t i o n a l i z e a content domain to represent each c o n s t r u c t . The p o t e n t i a l items f o r each construct were examined and c l a s s i f i e d i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s : Verbal Behaviors, B e h a v i o r a l Components and P e r s o n a l i t y Components (defined i n Chapter I I ) . The items w i t h i n each category were then s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the p i l o t s cale according to s e v e r a l c r i t e r i a . F i r s t , the items which were b e h a v i o r a l l y defined were r e t a i n e d f o r the Verbal Behavior and B e h a v i o r a l Components f a c e t ; de-s c r i p t o r s of p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were r e t a i n e d f o r t h P e r s o n a l i t y Components f a c e t . Second, any item which could b modified s l i g h t l y so as to be b e h a v i o r a l l y defined without changing i t s meaning or i n t e n t was r e t a i n e d . Those items which were f e l t to be extremely vague and could not be modi-f i e d to form b e h a v i o r a l d e s c r i p t o r s were excluded. Twelve p o t e n t i a l items f o r the Verbal Behavior and B e h a v i o r a l Compon ents f a c e t s were e l i m i n a t e d at t h i s stage. Thus, the items w i t h i n the Verbal and B e h a v i o r a l f a c e t s each represented a hypothesized component of a s s e r t i o n or ag-g r e s s i o n , and were d e s c r i p t o r s of v e r b a l or nonverbal behav-i o r s o c c u r r i n g w i t h i n an i n t e r p e r s o n a l context. Items w i t h i n the P e r s o n a l i t y Components f a c e t c o n s i s t e d mostly of a d j e c t -i v e s which were considered to be d e s c r i p t i v e of p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an a s s e r t i v e or aggressive person. To f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e the v e r b a l aspects of a s s e r t i o n and aggression, a f o u r t h f a c e t c a l l e d Verbal Statements (de-f i n e d i n Chapter I I ) was added to the s c a l e . Items f o r t h i s f a c e t were suggested by s e v e r a l sources: Assertion/Aggression d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t s provided i n t e x t s on a s s e r t i o n ; examples of speech s t y l e and content provided i n t e x t s ; and from items included w i t h i n the other three s c a l e f a c e t s . Each item was constructed to include speech s t y l e , and one or more hypothesized components of a s s e r t i o n or aggression. 85 To serve as anchor p o i n t s , and checks on accuracy, s e v e r a l "unassertive" d e s c r i p t o r s were added to each f a c e t (defined i n Chapter I I ) . The f i n a l p i l o t s c a l e c o n s i s t e d of 179 items d i s t r i b u t e d over f o u r f a c e t s : Verbal Behavior, B e h a v i o r a l Components, P e r s o n a l i t y Components and Verbal Statements. Each item' w i t h i n each f a c e t was assigned a p o s i t i o n by use of a t a b l e of random numbers. An attempt was made to b a l -ance the number of a s s e r t i o n and aggression items w i t h i n each f a c e t . Table 5 i n d i c a t e s the type and number of items w i t h i n each f a c e t . Response Mode A p i l o t study was conducted to examine the u t i l i t y of two d i f f e r e n t response modes f o r r a t i n g p i l o t s c a l e items. F i f t y -two undergraduate students e n r o l l e d i n a measurement course p a r t i c i p a t e d . The two response modes examined were C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Boxes and L i k e r t - t y p e format. These are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 4. S i x t e e n items were s e l e c t e d from the p i l o t s c a l e . Each item was assigned a p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the m i n i - s c a l e by a t a b l e of random numbers. Two forms of the m i n i - s c a l e were devised, such th a t each person rated eight items using the C l a s s i f i c a -t i o n Boxes and e i g h t items using the L i k e r t - t y p e format. 86 Table 5 P i l o t Scale Composition Scale Facet  Verbal B e h a v i o r a l P e r s o n a l i t y Verbal T o t a l Item Type Behavior Components Components Statements Items A s s e r t i o n 29 21 28 8 86 Items Aggression 19 22 27 8 76 Items Unassertive 3 4 6 4 17 Items T o t a l Items 51 47 61 20 179 Numbers i n rows and columns r e f e r to number of items w i t h i n each item type and s c a l e f a c e t 87 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n B o x e s A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n B o t h N e i t h e r I t e m I t e m L i k e r t - t y p e F o r m a t ' • *y / ' K> / *J *° A, ^ A o ^ —» 1 *•*• 1 1— — i - 1 •+- ) * — 2 3 ^ 5 1 2 3 ^ 5 A S S E R T I O N A G G R E S S I O N F i g u r e 4. R e s p o n s e m o d e s f o r p i l o t s t u d y 88 The order i n which the response options occurred was random-i z e d such that approximately 50$ of the i n d i v i d u a l s r a t e d items using C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Boxes f i r s t , then the L i k e r t - t y p e format; 50$ r a t e d items using L i k e r t - t y p e format f i r s t , then C l a s s i f i -c a t i o n Boxes. Although the response mode order was counter-balanced, the item p o s i t i o n remained f i x e d . Thus, each i n d i -v i d u a l r a t e d an item using only one response mode, but across the two forms of the m i n i - s c a l e , each item was r a t e d on both response modes. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Boxes were to choose one of the four options ( A s s e r t i o n , Aggression, Both or Neither) according to which optio n most a c c u r a t e l y represented the item. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the L i k e r t - t y p e format s t a t e d the items were to be r a t e d according to how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c the item was of As-s e r t i o n ' and Aggression on the 5-point L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e . A Comment sheet was attached to the l a s t page of the m i n i - s c a l e . Students were asked to i n d i c a t e which response mode they found c l e a r e s t and allowed f o r most accuracy i n response. To determine whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r response mode, the data were analyzed by a repeated meas-ures a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e , using the BMD08V (Le, 1978) com-puter program. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n t (p< .05) between C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Boxes (F^ 2^=1.47) or L i k e r t - t y p e f o r -mat ( F 1 2^=.01). 89 A frequency count of responses to the Comment sheet i n d i -cated a preference f o r using the L i k e r t - t y p e format. On the b a s i s of students' responses to the Comment sheet, and the greater data a n a l y t i c power permitted by use of a L i k e r t - t y p e format, t h i s response mode was chosen f o r the p i l o t s c a l e p r e - t e s t . P i l o t Scale Pre-Test When the p i l o t s c a l e was completed, i t was pre - t e s t e d on i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h knowledge of the c o n s t r u c t s . The purposes of p r e - t e s t i n g were two-fold: f i r s t , to o b t a i n feedback on the s c a l e format, items and L i k e r t - t y p e format; and second, to determine whether the s c a l e would serve i t s intended purpose of component i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and thus f a c i l i t a t e construct c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Eleven a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s i n or near Vancouver, three p r o f e s s o r s and f i v e graduate students completed the p i l o t s c a l e . Graduate students' and p r o f e s s o r s ' s c a l e r e s u l t s were only analyzed i n terms of comments made. Each s c a l e c o n s i s t e d of a cover page e x p l a i n i n g the pur-pose of the p r e - t e s t , an i n s t r u c t i o n page, the item content, and a "Comments" page (Appendix G). The i n s t r u c t i o n s requested that p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e each item twice, once f o r a s s e r t i o n , and then f o r aggression on two 5-point L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e s presented side by s i d e . The begin-ning, middle and end p o i n t s of the L i k e r t r a t i n g s c a l e were 90 l a b e l l e d Not at A l l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c , Somewhat C h a r a c t e r i s t i c and Very C h a r a c t e r i s t i c . P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to r a t e according to how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c an item was of a s s e r t i o n or aggression. The intermediate p o i n t s were not given e x p l i c i t l a b e l s . On the "Comments" page, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to r e -mark on d i f f e r e n t aspects of the s c a l e : l e n g t h of time nec-essary to complete the s c a l e , c l a r i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n s , organ-i z a t i o n , format, response mode, items, and o v e r a l l impression of the s c a l e . With regard to items, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to i n d i c a t e which they f e l t were good ( G - p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i p -t i v e ) and which were ambiguous (A-ambiguous item; meaning u n c l e a r ) . Results of Pre-Test Scale data were analyzed f o r a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s using the Laboratory of E d u c a t i o n a l Research Test A n a l y s i s Package (LERTAP) (Nelson, 1974). The means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of each item f o r t r a i n e r s are presented i n Appendix H. Due to the s m all sample s i z e , and the f a c t that items w i t h i n each f a c e t were not conceived as being a homogeneous s e t , i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t i e s and f a c e t i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s are not reported f o r the p i l o t s c a l e . On a d e s c r i p t i v e l e v e l , the average completion time f o r the s c a l e was 35-40 minutes. Comments from p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i -cated that they experienced d i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g each item f o r 91 a s s e r t i o n and aggression simultaneously. A l l but one t r a i n e r marked items as Good or Ambiguous. Five t r a i n e r s expressed d i f f i c u l t y i n r a t i n g some unassertive items (e.g. q u i e t voice) as they f e l t these items could a l s o represent passive/aggres-s i v e r e s p o n s e s / c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F i n a l Scale Several c r i t e r i a were employed i n d e c i d i n g which items to in c l u d e i n the f i n a l s c a i e . F i r s t , a l l items which f o u r or more t r a i n e r s found to be ambiguous were excluded (22). Second, a l l items marked as Ambiguous by two or three t r a i n e r s were examined; on the -basis of t r a i n e r s ' comments, 12 items were dropped. T h i r d , 41 items which t r a i n e r s f e l t were redundant or overlapped were excluded or combined (e.g. expressing agree-ment when p r a i s e d and accepting compliments). Fourth, 3 new items were suggested by t r a i n e r s and included i n the f i n a l s c a l e . F i f t h , other comments on items made by t r a i n e r s were considered. F o r t y - f i v e items were r e t a i n e d i n the scale w i t h s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n s (e.g. speaking c r i t i c a l l y of another per-son was changed to speaking c r i t i c a l l y of another person be-hind t h e i r back). As p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g each item on the A s s e r t i o n and Aggression L i k e r t - t y p e r a t i n g s c a l e s s i m u l -taneously, a d e c i s i o n was made to i n c l u d e each item twice, once i n each of the two r a t i n g contexts. Thus, a l l items w i t h -i n the f o u r f a c e t s of the s c a l e were r a t e d i n one context, and then r a t e d again i n the other r a t i n g context. T h e f i n a l s c a l e c o n s i s t e d o f 1 0 4 i t e m s . A s e a c h i t e m a p p e a r e d t w i c e , p a r t i c i p a n t s a c t u a l l y m a d e 2 0 8 r a t i n g s . T h e f i n a l s c a l e i s i n c l u d e d i n A p p e n d i x • I . T a b l e 6 r e p o r t s s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n b y i t e m t y p e , n u m b e r o f i t e m s w i t h i n e a c h f a c e t a n d t o t a l n u m b e r o f i t e m s o n t h e s c a l e . T o c o u n t e r b a l a n c e o r d e r e f f e c t s , a L a t i n s q u a r e d e s i g n w a s u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e f a c e t p l a c e m e n t a n d s e q u e n c e o f r a t i n g c o n t e x t ( i . e . A s s e r t i o n , A g g r e s s i o n ) . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n e i g h t s c a l e c o l l a t i o n a r r a n g e m e n t s . T h e s e w e r e : ( 1 ) F a c e t o r d e r : V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s . R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n , t h e n A g g r e s s i o n . ( 2 ) F a c e t o r d e r : V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s . R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A g g r e s s i o n , t h e n A s s e r t i o n . (3) F a c e t o r d e r : V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s . R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n , t h e n A g g r e s s i o n . F a c e t o r d e r : V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A g g r e s s i o n , t h e n A s s e r t i o n . F a c e t o r d e r : B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s . R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n , t h e n A g g r e s s i o n . F a c e t o r d e r : B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s . R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A g g r e s s i o n , t h e n A s s e r t i o n F a c e t o r d e r : P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n , t h e n A g g r e s s i o n . F a c e t o r d e r : P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r R a t i n g c o n t e x t : A l l i t e m s r a t e d o n A g g r e s s i o n , t h e n A s s e r t i o n . 94 T a b l e 6 F i n a l S c a l e C o m p o s i t i o n F a c e t  V e r b a l B e h a v i o r a l P e r s o n a l i t y V e r b a l T o t a l I t e m T y p e B e h a v i o r C o m p o n e n t s T r a i t s S t a t e m e n t s I t e m s A s s e r t i v e l 4 a 1 0 15 9 4 8 A g g r e s s i v e 13 9 1 4 8 44 U n a s s e r t i v e 3 3 3 3 1 2 T o t a l I t e m s 30 2 2 32 2 0 1 0 4 N u m b e r s i n r o w s a n d c o l u m n s r e f e r t o n u m b e r s o f i t e m s w i t h i n e a c h i t e m t y p e a n d f a c e t 95 Items were assigned t h e i r p o s i t i o n w i t h i n each r a t i n g context by use of a random numbers t a b l e . To f a c i l i t a t e item r a t i n g and to make data processing e a s i e r , each r a t i n g context was p r i n t e d on a d i f f e r e n t c o l o r paper. The complete s c a l e c o n s i s t e d of nine pages: an I n s t r u c -t i o n Sheet, f o l l o w e d by 16 pages of items ( p r i n t e d back to back). On the i n s t r u c t i o n page, a box was provided f o r a pre-coded f i v e - d i g i t subject i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, and a two-d i g i t coding number f o r f a c e t and r a t i n g context order, which f a c i l i t a t e d s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of data c o l l a t i o n on r e t u r n , and permitted t e s t i n g of order e f f e c t s . The I n s t r u c t i o n Sheet provided r a t e r s w i t h d e t a i l e d i n -formation on how to use the L i k e r t - t y p e r a t i n g s c a l e s . Raters were asked to decide how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c an item was of ass e r -t i o n (or aggression), and to c i r c l e the appropriate r a t i n g s c a l e p o i n t . The f i v e p o i n t s were defined as "not at a l l " (Point 1), "somewhat" (Point 3) and "very" (Point 5) charac-t e r i s t i c . P oints 2 and 4 were not given e x p l i c i t l a b e l s . When data was returned, each was marked as having been r e c e i v e d , and r e - c o l l a t e d i n t o a standardized order f o r analyses. 96 DATA ANALYSES Sev e r a l types of analyses were conducted f o r various as-pects of the study. Thus, t h i s s e c t i o n i s organized under two major headings: Questionnaire Analyses and Scale Analyses. Questionnaire Analyses P o p u l a t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s To examine biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i d e n t i -f i e d p o p u l a t i o n , a l l r e l e v a n t questionnaire v a r i a b l e s were analyzed using the S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences (SPSS, K i t a , 1977)- As responses to some questions were con-tingent on responses to preceeding questions, i t was necessary to analyze these v a r i a b l e s s e p a r a t e l y . The v a r i a b l e s Age, Occupation, Employment Agency, and Sex were analyzed f o r those i n d i v i d u a l s who i n d i c a t e d involvement i n e i t h e r t r a i n i n g or research. I f the respondent was i n v o l v e d i n t r a i n i n g , the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were analyzed: l e n g t h of involvement, where in f o r m a t i o n on teaching a s s e r t i v e n e s s was obtained, involvement as to sex of c l i e n t e l e , involvement on a group or i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , and whether c l i e n t s are thought to have d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n from aggression. I f t r a i n e r s respond-ed a f f i r m a t i v e l y to the l a s t question, a frequency count was done on the p r o p o r t i o n of c l i e n t e l e thought to experience such d i f f i c u l t y . I f respondents i n d i c a t e d involvement i n research, the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were analyzed: length of involvement i n 97 research, type of research and j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s / h o o k s pub-l i s h e d . The Sample To determine whether d i f f e r e n t i a l bias e x i s t e d between those who returned t h e i r completed f i n a l s c a l e s , and those who di d not, each r e l e v a n t questionnaire v a r i a b l e was compared to Return/Nonreturn. The SPSS Crosstab and M u l t i p l e Crosstab subroutines were used. As some q u e s t i o n n a i r e . v a r i a b l e s were at the nominal l e v e l of measurement, and others at the o r d i n a l l e v e l , appropriate s t a t i s t i c s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each contingency t a b l e . 'Chi-squared' values were c a l c u l a t e d and te s t e d f o r nominal—nominal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; the s t a t i s t i c 'eta squared' was used to describe the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r d i n a l and nominal v a r i a b l e s . Scale Analyses Order E f f e c t s A repeated measures a n a l y s i s of variance (ANOVA) was used to t e s t f o r the presence of order e f f e c t s and i n f l u e n c e of other f a c t o r s . Each f a c e t of the s c a l e was analyzed sep-a r a t e l y . For each of the ANOVA's, there were f i v e independent v a r i a b l e s and one dependent v a r i a b l e . The independent v a r i -ables were: Facet Order (the order of f a c e t p r e s e n t a t i o n ) ; Scale Order (the order i n which an i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e d the r a t i n g c o n t e x t — A s s e r t i o n f i r s t or Aggression); Items ( d i f f e r -98 ences among items w i t h i n each f a c e t ) ; Scale (the r a t i n g s c a l e u s e d — A s s e r t i o n vs. Aggression); and Person, which was nested under Facet and Scale Order. Person was t r e a t e d as a random f a c t o r ; a l l other indepen-dent v a r i a b l e s were considered as f i x e d f a c t o r s . The depen-dent v a r i a b l e was person's scores on each f a c e t . As the l a r g e number of degrees of freedom made the F t e s t s extremely s e n s i -t i v e to d i f f e r e n c e s , the r e s u l t s were discussed i n terms of proportions of v a r i a b i l i t y i n the dependent v a r i a b l e accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . 2 H o t e l l i n g s T 2 To examine item d i f f e r e n c e s , a H o t e l l i n g s T was c a l -c u l a t e d f o r each f a c e t using the T r i a n g u l a r Regression Package (TRP; Le & T e n i s c i , 1977). The means of each item on both a s s e r t i o n and aggression were then compared and t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the c<=.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . R e l i a b i l i t y To determine i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t i e s and item c o r r e l a t i o n s , the s c a l e data were analyzed using the Laboratory of E d u c a t i o n a l Research Test A n a l y s i s Package (LERTAP; Nelson, 197^). As items w i t h i n each f a c e t were not intended to be . homogeneous, i t was necessary to provide appropriate r e f e r e n t s . 99 T h e i t e m s w i t h i n e a c h f a c e t h y p o t h e s i z e d t o r e p r e s e n t a s s e r -t i o n w e r e t r e a t e d a s s e p a r a t e s u b s c a l e s . S i m i l a r l y , i t e m s w i t h i n e a c h f a c e t h y p o t h e s i z e d t o r e p r e s e n t a g g r e s s i o n w e r e t r e a t e d a s s e p a r a t e s u b s c a l e s . T h u s , t h e r e w e r e f o u r a s s e r -t i o n s u b s c a l e s ( o n e f o r e a c h f a c e t ) a n d f o u r a g g r e s s i o n s u b -s c a l e s . F o r e a c h i t e m , c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h i t s r e s p e c t i v e s u b - -s c a l e a n d t o t a l s c a l e ( i . e . a l l f o u r s u b s c a l e s ) w e r e c a l c u l a t e d . I t e m s i n t e n d e d t o b e u n a s s e r t i v e w e r e e x c l u d e d f r o m t h i s a n a l -y s i s . M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g T o f u r t h e r e x p l o r e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n , m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g w a s p e r f o r m e d u s i n g t h e N u m e r i c a l T a x o n o m y S y s t e m o f M u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c a l P r o g r a m s ( N T S V S ; R o h l f e t a l . ; 1978). T h e s e a l i n g p r o g r a m u s e d p e r f o r m e d n o n m e t r i c a n a l y s i s , s u c h t h a t o b j e c t s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d g e o m e t r i c a l l y b y p o i n t s i n K - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e i n a m o n o t o n e ( o r l i n e a r ) m a n n e r t o t h e o b s e r v e d d i s t a n c e s b e -t w e e n t h e o b j e c t s i n P - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e ( P > K ) . A m a x i m u m o f 50 i t e r a t i o n s w a s u s e d w i t h a m i n i m u m s t r e s s v a l u e o f .001. E a c h f a c e t w a s a n a l y z e d t w i c e , o n c e f o r i t e m s w h e n r a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n , a n d a g a i n f o r t h e s a m e i t e m s w h e n r a t e d o n A g g r e s s i o n . T h u s , 8 a n a l y s e s w e r e p e r f o r m e d . D i s t a n c e m a t r i c e s w e r e g e n e r a t e d u s i n g t h e m e a n f o r e a c h i t e m w i t h i n a r a t i n g c o n t e x t ( A s s e r t i o n o r A g g r e s s i o n ) . Each of the e i g h t d i s t a n c e m a t r i c e s c o n s i s t e d of the a b s o l u t e raw mean d i f f e r e n c e s between items. For a l l e i g h t a n a l y s e s , a l i n e a r s o l u t i o n was o b t a i n e d . R e s u l t s of the analyses are presented i n t a b u l a r and g r a p h i -c a l form. CHAPTER IV ANALYSES AND RESULTS Chapter IV presents the r e s u l t s of analyses f o r the i d e n t i f i e d p o p u l a t i o n , the sample, and sc a l e data. As s e v e r a l l e v e l s of analyses were employed, the r e s u l t s have heen organized i n t o two major s e c t i o n s : (A) The Po p u l a t i o n and the Sample This s e c t i o n includes the r e t u r n r a t e f o r f i n a l data, r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondr ents and nonrespondents f o r f i n a l data, and biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i d e n t i -f i e d p o p u l a t i o n . (B) Scale Analyses This s e c t i o n presents the r e s u l t s f o r sc a l e analyses i n c l u d i n g t e s t i n g f o r order e f f e c t s , item d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and item a n a l y s i s , estimates of i n t e r n a l consistency, item c o r r e l a t i o n s , and multi-dimensional s c a l i n g . 102 T H E P O P U L A T I O N A N D T H E S A M P L E  S c a l e s M a i l e d a n d R e t u r n R a t e O f t h e 296 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e c e i v e d a t S t a g e 7> t w e l v e i n d i c a t e d t h e y w e r e n o t i n v o l v e d i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g o r r e s e a r c h , a n d e l e v e n w e r e e x c l u d e d b e c a u s e t h e y h a d p r e v i o u s l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s c a l e p r e - t e s t . F i v e o t h e r s r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , b u t m i s s e d t h e d e a d l i n e f o r m a i l i n g o f t h e s c a l e s . T h u s , s c a l e s w e r e s e n t t o 268 i n d i v i d u a l s w h o h a d r e -t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , v e r i f y i n g t h e i r i n v o l v e m e n t i n e i t h e r t r a i n i n g o r r e s e a r c h . A d d i t i o n a l l y , 25 i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e n a m e s h a d b e e n p r o v i d e d b y o t h e r s i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n d w h o h a d n o t v e r i f i e d t h e i r i n v o l v e m e n t , w e r e s e n t f i n a l s c a l e s a n d a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . O f t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e p r e - v e r i f i e d g r o u p , 185/268 (69.5$) r e t u r n e d c o m p l e t e d s c a l e s , a s c o m p a r e d t o 11/25 ( 4 8 $ ( ) ' i n t h e n o n - v e r i f i e d g r o u p . W i t h t h e a d d i t i o n a l m a i l i n g o f 25 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t h e o v e r a l l r e t u r n r a t e f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w a s 8 1 $ (307/378). T h e d i f f e r e n c e i n r e t u r n r a t e f o r t h e p r e - a n d p o s t -v e r i f i c a t i o n g r o u p w a r r a n t s d i s c u s s i o n . T h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e p r e - v e r i f i c a t i o n g r o u p h a d b e e n c o n t a c t e d b y t h e r e s e a r c h e r a t l e a s t o n c e ; s o m e w e r e c o n t a c t e d m o r e t h a n o n c e b e c a u s e t h e y i d e n t i f i e d t h e m s e l v e s a s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s i n t h e k e y i n f o r m a n t m a i l i n g , t h e n r e c e i v e d a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I t i s p o s s -i b l e t h a t b e c a u s e t h i s g r o u p h a d a l r e a d y p a r t i c i p a t e d p r i o r t o 103 r e c e i v i n g the f i n a l s c a l e , they f e l t more committed to the p r o j e c t . Table 7 r e p o r t s the number of returns and the r e t u r n r a t e s f o r pre- and p o s t - v e r i f i c a t i o n groups. A n a l y s i s of questionnaire data revealed some i n t e r e s t i n g d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n on the 'completeness* of the i d e n t i -f i e d p o p u l a t i o n . Of the 307 questionnaires r e c e i v e d , 175 i n d i v i d u a l s provided no names of any other t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s known to them. A frequency count was made of 'new' names ( i . e . had not been provided p r e v i o u s l y ) and 'redundant' names ( i . e . had been provided p r e v i o u s l y by at l e a s t one t r a i n e r / r e s e a r c h e r ) . These two categories were not regarded as s t a b l e : names o r i g i n a l l y coded as 'new' became coded as 'redundant' as soon as at l e a s t one other i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i f i e d them. Using these categories as a ba s i s f o r comparison, only 42 'new' names were provided on ques t i o n n a i r e s ; 105 names were mentioned more than once, many s e v e r a l times. Biodemographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the I d e n t i f i e d P o p u l a t i o n This s e c t i o n summarizes the i n f o r m a t i o n obtained from returned Demographic Information Sheets. The complete r e s u l t s are presented i n Appendix J . Of the 307 questionnaires returned, 288 (94$) i n d i v i d u a l s are c u r r e n t l y (or have been) i n v o l v e d i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n -i n g . Seventy-four t r a i n e r s (26$) are i n v o l v e d i n both research T a b l e 7 R e t u r n s b y P r o v i n c e f o r P r e - a n d P o s t - V e r i f i c a t i o n G r o u p s P r e - V e r i f i c a t i o n P o s t - V e r i f i c a t i o n P r o v i n c e D a t a S e n t D a t a R e c e i v e d R e t u r n R a t e {% ) D a t a S e n t D a t a R e t u r n e d R e c e i v e d U n o p e n e d U s e a b l e R e t u r n R a t e ( % ) a T o t a l S c a l e s R e c e i v e d B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 6 1 4 4 7 2 . 1 4 3 1 1 0 0 4 7 A l b e r t a 2 0 1 5 7 5 . 0 2 1 5 0 1 6 S a s k a t c h e w a n 1 9 1 0 5 2 . 6 1 0 M a n i t o b a 14 1 1 7 8 . 5 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 O n t a r i o 8 9 6 2 6 9 . 6 8 4 1 5 7 6 6 Q u e b e c 2 6 1 7 6 5 - 3 4 0 1 7 N e w f o u n d l a n d 1 5 7 46 . 7 1 0 7 N e w B r u n s w i c k 8 6 7 5 - 0 2 2 1 0 0 8 N o v a S c o t i a 1 5 1 2 8 0 . 0 3 0 1 2 P r i n c e E d w a r d I s l a n d 1 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 T o t a l S c a l e s R e c e i v e d 2 6 8 1 8 5 2 5 1 1 1 9 6 a U s e a b l e r e t u r n r a t e = D a t a R e c e i v e d x 1 0 0 D a t a S e n t -- R e t u r n e d U n o p e n e d O 105 a n d t r a i n i n g . S e v e n (2$) i n d i v i d u a l s a r e e n g a g e d i n r e s e a r c h o n l y . O n l y 12 r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h e y w e r e n o t i n v o l v e d i n e i t h e r t r a i n i n g o r r e s e a r c h (4$). O f t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n t r a i n i n g o r r e s e a r c h , 30$ a r e e m -p l o y e d a t u n i v e r s i t i e s . T w e n t y p e r c e n t a r e . e m p l o y e e s o f p r o -v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t s , a n d 15$ a r e c o l l e g e e m p l o y e e s . A n o t h e r 12$ w o r k t h r o u g h p r i v a t e c o u n s e l l i n g a g e n c i e s . O f t h e 16$ w h o c h e c k e d t h e " o t h e r " c a t e g o r y , m o s t a r e e m p l o y e d i n h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g s o r a r e i n p r i v a t e p r a c t i c e s . W i t h r e g a r d t o o c c u p a t i o n , 32$ w o r k p r o f e s s i o n a l l y a s p s y c h o l o g i s t s a n d 25$ a s c o u n s e l l o r s . A n o t h e r 10$ a r e s o c i a l w o r k e r s ; 8$ a r e p r o f e s s o r s . T w e n t y p e r c e n t o f t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n r e s e a r c h o r t r a i n i n g c h e c k e d t h e " o t h e r " c a t e g o r y ; m o s t o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s d e f i n e d t h e m s e l v e s p r o f e s s i o n a l l y a s a s s e r -t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s , p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t s , o r n u r s e s . F i f t y p e r c e n t o f t h e i d e n t i f i e d p o p u l a t i o n p o s s e s s M a s -t e r ' s d e g r e e s ( o r e q u i v a l e n t ) , a n d 25$ h a v e D o c t o r a l d e g r e e s ( o r e q u i v a l e n t ) . A n o t h e r 12$ h a v e B a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e s ( o r e q u i v a l e n t ) , a n d o n l y a f e w i n d i v i d u a l s s t a t e d t h a t t h e y h a d n o d e g r e e s (4$). M o s t i n d i v i d u a l s (50.8$) i n t h e i d e n t i f i e d p o p u l a t i o n a r e b e t w e e n 30-40 y e a r s o f a g e . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 25$ a r e 20-30 y e a r s o l d , a n d 17$ a r e 40-50 y e a r s o l d . F i v e p e r c e n t a r e o v e r 50 y e a r s o f a g e . T h o s e i n v o l v e d i n t h e f i e l d a r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y f e m a l e (65$)! 35$ o f t h o s e i n v o l v e d a r e m e n . Assertiveness T r a i n e r s A t o t a l of 288 i n d i v i d u a l s from the i d e n t i f i e d p o p u l a t i o n are i n v o l v e d i n as s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . Most have been i n -volved f o r 1-3 years (55$)» and many have been in v o l v e d f o r 4-6 years (28$). Only 4$ have been i n v o l v e d over 6 years. The m a j o r i t y of t r a i n e r s learned about teaching a s s e r t i v e ness from s e v e r a l sources which i n c l u d e d reading books on the subject (47$), being taught by an "AT" expert (21$), or being i n s t r u c t e d by a prof e s s o r (12$). Twenty percent i n d i c a t e d s e v e r a l other sources, i n c l u d i n g , involvement i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g workshops as a p a r t i c i p a n t or co-leader. Since l e a r n i n g to teach a s s e r t i v e n e s s workshops, 66$ have provided 1-14 workshops. S i x t e e n percent have given between 15-25 workshops. T h i r t e e n percent have conducted over 25 work shops. T r a i n e r s ' involvement has been predominantly w i t h females ( 6 l $ ) , although a s u b s t a n t i a l number work w i t h an equal pro-p o r t i o n of men and women (29$). Only 7$ work predominantly w i t h men. An overwhelming m a j o r i t y i n d i c a t e d t h e i r i n v o l v e -ment i s predominantly w i t h groups (74$) r a t h e r than on an i n d i v i d u a l basis (7$)• Eighteen percent work e q u a l l y w i t h groups and i n d i v i d u a l s . Most t r a i n e r s i n d i c a t e d that c l i e n t s have d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between a s s e r t i o n and aggression (68$). Of t h i s 68$, 26$ f e l t t h a t 40-60$ of the c l i e n t e l e had such d i f -f i c u l t y . E i g h t percent f e l t 80-100$ had d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r -107 e n t i a t i n g them. The remaining categories (0-20%; 20-40$; and 60-80$) each contained approximately 20 percent. Twenty-seven percent of the ass e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s f e l t t hat c l i e n t s had no d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the c o n s t r u c t s . Research Of the i d e n t i f i e d p o p u l a t i o n , a t o t a l of 81 i n d i v i d u a l s are i n v o l v e d i n research on a s s e r t i o n . Of those engaged, 74 are a l s o i n v o l v e d i n ass e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . Seven are i n -volved only i n research. Most have been engaged i n research f o r 1-3 years (63%), and 24$ f o r l e s s than 1 year. Fourteen percent have been i n v o l v e d f o r 4-6 years. The nature of research appears to be qui t e d i v e r s i f i e d , ranging from treatment of alco h o l i s m to i n f o r m a l e v a l u a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e n e s s workshops. A d d i t i o n a l l y , many researchers have w r i t t e n or submitted j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n , ( 2 8 $ ) ; f o u r have published books. Summary The i d e n t i f i e d p o p u l a t i o n of ass e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / researchers appears to include well-educated i n d i v i d u a l s em-ployed i n p r o f e s s i o n a l c a p a c i t i e s . The m a j o r i t y of t r a i n e r s are female, between 30-40 years of age, and possess at l e a s t a Master's degree or equiv a l e n t . Most i n d i v i d u a l s are i n v o l v e d i n t r a i n i n g , although a 108 s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n are a l s o i n v o l v e d i n research. Few are i n v o l v e d only i n research. Their length of involvement i n the f i e l d i s l i k e l y to be between 1-3 years; t r a i n e r s on the aver-age have conducted 1-14 workshops. Involvement appears to be predominantly w i t h females i n a group s e t t i n g . Most t r a i n -ers i n d i c a t e d that c l i e n t s have d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n and aggression. Approximately 4-0-60$ of c l i e n t s are s a i d to have such d i f f i c u l t y , w i t h approximately equal numbers i n three other categories (0-20$, 20-40$, 60-80$). Those i n d i v i d u a l s engaged i n research have been -so i n -volved f o r 1-3 years. Research i n t e r e s t s appear q u i t e d i v e r -s i f i e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a s u b s t a n t i a l number of researchers have published j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s . Comparison of Sample Respondents and Nonrespondents  on Questionnaire V a r i a b l e s Responses to questionnaires were used as a b a s i s f o r com-pa r i s o n i n determining whether d i f f e r e n t i a l b i a s e x i s t e d be-tween th a t p o r t i o n of the sample who returned t h e i r data, and that p o r t i o n who d i d not. Contingency t a b l e s were constructed such t h a t each r e l e -vant questionnaire v a r i a b l e was compared to two l e v e l s of 'Return' (returned completed s c a l e or d i d n o t ) . Complete' t a b l e s are included i n Appendix K. Table 8 summarizes the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s i n terms of the r e l e v a n t questionnaire v a r i a b l e s and the t e s t s t a t i s t i c 109 T a b l e 8 S u m m a r y o f B i o d e m o g r a p h l c D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n S a m p l e R e s p o n d e n t s a n d N o n r e s p o n d e n t s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e V a r i a b l e T e s t S t a t i s t i c D i f f e r e n c e ( p < .05) D e g r e e X 2(3) = .397 n s d A g e 2 E t a ^ = .026 n s d O c c u p a t i o n % (6)" .944 n s d E m p l o y m e n t X (6)" 10 . 8 4 0 n s d S e x * x 2 (ir .127 n s d I n v o l v e m e n t i n t r a i n i n g 2 . 1 4 0 n s d L e n g t h o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n t r a i n i n g E t a 2 = . 0 4 0 n s d W h e r e d i d y o u l e a r n a b o u t t e a c h i n g A T ? «/ 2 % ( 3 ) " . 8 1 6 n s d N u m b e r o f w o r k s h o p s c o n d u c t e d E t a 2 = .005 n s d I n v o l v e m e n t : M a l e s / F e m a l e s / E q u a l p r o p o r t i o n ry 2 A (2) = .490 n s d p I n v o l v e m e n t : G r o u p s / I n d i v i d u a l s / ty E q u a l p r o p o r t i o n ™ ^ ' 1 . 1 4 4 n s d D o c l i e n t s h a v e d i f f i c u l t y d i f -f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n f r o m a g g r e s s i o n ? * d ' % ( 1 ) " 0 n s d W h a t p r o p o r t i o n o f c l i e n t e l e h a v e t h i s d i f f i c u l t y ? E t a 2 = .019 n s d I n v o l v e m e n t i n r e s e a r c h *X2ur .138 n s d L e n g t h o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n r e s e a r c h 2 E t a = .083 n s d T y p e o f r e s e a r c h ( s p e c i f i e d / n o t s p e c i f i e d ) *» 2 X (i)" .250 n s d Y a t e s c o r r e c t e d C h i - s q u a r e f o r 2 x 2 t a b l e s 110 e m p l o y e d . M i s s i n g d a t a ( n o r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n ) w e r e n o t i n -c l u d e d i n c a l c u l a t i o n s o f t h e s t a t i s t i c s . A t t h e ©< - .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , , t h e r e w e r e n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o n / i a n y q u e s t i o n n a i r e v a r i a b l e b e t w e e n t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e s a m p l e w h o r e t u r n e d t h e i r s c a l e a n d t h a t p o r t i o n w h o d i d n o t . T h u s , u s i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e v a r i a b l e s a s a b a s i s f o r c o m p a r i s o n , n o d i f f e r e n t i a l b i a s w a s e v i d e n t . S C A L E A N A L Y S E S  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e A s d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r I I I , a L a t i n s q u a r e d e s i g n w a s u s e d i n s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n t o c o u n t e r b a l a n c e o r d e r e f f e c t s . T o t e s t f o r t h e p r e s e n c e o f o r d e r e f f e c t s , a n d e x a m i n e t h e i n f l u e n c e o f v a r i o u s o t h e r f a c t o r s , a r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s a n a l -y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w a s c o n d u c t e d , u s i n g t h e BMD08V a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m ( L e , 1 9 7 7 ) . A s e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s w a s p e r f o r m e d f o r e a c h s c a l e f a c e t . T h e r e w e r e f i v e i n d e p e n -d e n t v a r i a b l e s : (1) F a c e t o r d e r ( F ) - r e f e r s t o t h e f o u r o r d e r s o f f a c e t a r r a n g e m e n t . T h e s e w e r e : ( a ) V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n -e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s . ( b ) B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s , V e r b a l B e h a v i o r . I l l (2) Scale order (S) (3) Item (I) (4) Rating Context (A) (5) Person (P) (c) P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , Verbal S t a t e -ments, V e r b a l Behavior, B e h a v i o r a l Components. (d) Verbal Statements, Verbal Behavior, B e h a v i o r a l Components, P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s . - r e f e r s to the order i n which a person received the a c t u a l L i k e r t - t y p e r a t i n g s c a l e s : A s s e r t i o n s c a l e f i r s t across f o u r f a c e t s , then Aggression; or Aggression sc a l e f i r s t across the fo u r f a c e t s , then A s s e r t i o n . - r e f e r s to d i f f e r e n c e s among items w i t h -i n each f a c e t . - r e f e r s to the a c t u a l L i k e r t - t y p e r a t i n g s c a l e : A s s e r t i o n or Aggression. - r e f e r s to i n d i v i d u a l s nested under Facet order and Scale order (FS). There were f o u r f a c e t orders (F), two scale orders (S), and two r a t i n g contexts (A); 'F,' 'S,' and 'A' were t r e a t e d as f i x e d f a c t o r s . ' I ' r e f e r r e d to d i f f e r e n c e s among item w i t h i n each f a c e t ; t h i s was a l s o t r e a t e d as a f i x e d f a c t o r . Person (P) was t r e a t e d as a random f a c t o r . The dependent v a r i a b l e was i n d i v i d u a l ' s scores on each f a c e t . As the BMD08V program r e q u i r e s equal c e l l s i z e s , cases from w i t h i n Facet and Scale order arrangements were randomly deleted u n t i l a l l c e l l s were equal (N=19). Approximately s i x cases were deleted from 7 f a c e t and s c a l e arrangements; a l l 19 were included from the eighth f a c e t and s c a l e arrangement. The complete ANOVA r e s u l t s are presented i n Appendix L. Due to the l a r g e number of degrees of freedom i n the numerator and denominator, the F t e s t s were extremely s e n s i t i v e to t e s t -i n g procedures. Thus, f o r d i s c u s s i o n purposes, i t i s more meaningful to analyze the r e s u l t s i n terms of the p r o p o r t i o n 2 of v a r i a b i l i t y explained by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . Figures 5 through Figure 8 summarize the proportions of v a r i -a b i l i t y explained by components across the f o u r s c a l e f a c e t s . I n order to examine a l l f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n the same f i g u r e , i t was necessary to use l o g a r i t h m i c s c a l e f o r the o r d i n a l a x i s . Due to the procedures involved i n item s e l e c t i o n and screen-i n g , items were regarded as r e p r e s e n t i n g a f i n i t e r a t h e r than an i n f i n i t e p o p u l a t i o n . P r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a b i l i t y r e f e r s to t h a t amount of variance accounted f o r i n the dependent v a r i a b l e . P r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a b i l i t y was c a l c u l a t e d by summing the estimated v a r i -ance components (not i n c l u d i n g the mean) then c a l c u l a t i n g the percentage of v a r i a b i l i t y accounted f o r by each f a c t o r or i n t e r a c t i o n . 113 ! 0 0 1 .004 | Li_LL.u_^m^CLLi:^a5<<<^ . LL U . LL U) CL \2 - F a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s F i g u r e 5» V e r b a l behavior f a c e t : p r o p o r t i o n s of v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 114 V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t A s F i g u r e 5 i l l u s t r a t e s , a n e g l i g i b l e a m o u n t o f v a r i a b i l -i t y i s a c c o u n t e d f o r b y t h e f a c t o r s F a c e t O r d e r ( F ) , S c a l e O r d e r ( S ) o r R a t i n g S c a l e ( A ) a n d t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . I t e m s c o n t r i b u t e d 5$ t o t h e t o t a l v a r i a b i l i t y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , a v e r a g e d o v e r p e o p l e , i t e m s w e r e r a t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y b y i n -d i v i d u a l s . P e r s o n ( P ) a c c o u n t e d f o r 1 . 8 $ o f t h e t o t a l v a r i -a b i l i t y . I t e m s ( I ) w e r e e x p e c t e d t o f u n c t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y w h e n r a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g c o n t e x t s ( A ) . S i x t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a b i l i t y i s e x p l a i n e d b y t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n ( I A ) . T h e P e r s o n x I t e m x S c a l e i n t e r a c t i o n a c c o u n t e d f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l 19$. T h u s , i t e m s w h e n r a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s b y p e r s o n s e x p l a i n 8 4 $ o f t h e t o t a l v a r i a b i l i t y . V a r i a t i o n s a m o n g p e o p l e r a t i n g t h e i t e m s ( P I ) a c c o u n t e d f o r o n l y 5$ o f t h e v a r i a b i l i t y ; w h e r e a s , t h e p e r s o n b y s c a l e ( P A ) i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d o n l y 2 . 4 p e r c e n t . B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t A s F i g u r e 6 i l l u s t r a t e s , w i t h i n t h i s f a c e t , m o s t o f t h e v a r i a b i l i t y i s a c c o u n t e d f o r b y h o w i t e m s f u n c t i o n e d w h e n r a t e d o n t h e A s s e r t i o n / A g g r e s s i o n S c a l e s (67$) a n d b y t h e P e r s o n x I t e m x R a t i n g S c a l e ( P I A ) i n t e r a c t i o n (15$). A s i n t h e V e r b a l B e h a v i o r f a c e t , t h e f a c t o r s F a c e t O r d e r ( F ) , S c a l e O r d e r ( S ) , R a t i n g S c a l e ( A ) , a n d t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 115 100 10 1 s a 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 0.01 L L L L u_ to a_ F a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s F i g u r e 6. B e h a v i o r a l components f a c e t : p r o p o r t i o n s of v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 116 account f o r a n e g l i g i b l e p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a b i l i t y . Items (I) account f o r 6.4$ of the v a r i a b i l i t y , and Persons (P) e x p l a i n only 2.6$. V a r i a t i o n s among people r a t i n g the items (PI) explained only 5$ of "the v a r i a b i l i t y , i n d i c a t i n g consistency of r a t i n g patterns over persons. W i t h i n t h i s f a c e t , a t o t a l of 82$ of the t o t a l v a r i -a b i l i t y i s explained by how items functioned;.when rated across A s s e r t i o n and Aggression. P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s Facet Figure 7 i l l u s t r a t e s the greatest p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i -a b i l i t y w i t h i n t h i s f a c e t i s due to the d i f f e r e n t i a l item e f f e c t across the r a t i n g s c a l e s (IA) (76$) and the PIA i n t e r -a c t i o n (12.3$)• V a r i a t i o n s among i n d i v i d u a l s r a t i n g items explains only 4$ of the v a r i a b i l i t y , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t across people, items were r a t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y . This i s al s o i n d i c a t e d by the Item (I) f a c t o r which explained 4.4$ of the v a r i a b i l i t y . The main f a c t o r s Facet Order ( F ) , Scale Order (S), Rating Scale (A), and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s , accounted f o r a n e g l i g i b l e amount of v a r i a b i l i t y . Persons (P) explained 1$ of the v a r i -a b i l i t y . Thus, w i t h i n t h i s f a c e t , over 88$ of the v a r i a b i l i t y i s explained by how items f u n c t i o n when r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression. 117 100 <H o 0 fcuO a -p 0 o 0 ft £ • H P ctf o •H • H T 3 0 0 P O o o b • H a i o cd o CQ xi 0 P o W) o Ki I 10 0.1 0.01 1 j 1 1 0 0 Li- CO — <Q_10 — < < _ Li_ U_ LL LO CL £ - F a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s F i g u r e 7. P e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s f a c e t : p r o p o r t i o n s of v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 118 100 10 • 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.01 L _ U _ L l _ c / ) C / ) < L l . L i ( / ) ^ < < < -L L L L L L L O Q _ LO - F a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s F i g u r e 8. V e r b a l statement f a c e t : accounted f o r by f a c t o r s p r o p o r t i o n s of v a r i a n c e and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s 1 1 9 Verbal Statements Facet Wi t h i n t h i s f a c e t , 72$ of the v a r i a b i l i t y i s due to the Item and Scale (IA) i n t e r a c t i o n ; 13.5$ i s accounted f o r by the Person x Item x Scale (PIA) i n t e r a c t i o n . Thus, over 85$ of the t o t a l v a r i a b i l i t y i s accounted f o r by items behaving d i f f e r e n t l y when r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression. Items (I) accounted f o r 6$ of the v a r i a b i l i t y , whereas v a r i a t i o n i n how people r a t e d items explained only 3$. The main f a c t o r s Facet Order ( F ) , Scale Order (S), Rating Scale (A), and t h e i r i n t e r -a c t i o n s explained a n e g l i g i b l e amount of v a r i a b i l i t y . Summary C o n s i s t e n t l y across the f o u r s c a l e f a c e t s , the greatest p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a b i l i t y was explained by how items f u n c t i o n -ed when ra t e d on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression. The minimal amount of v a r i a b i l i t y explained by how i n d i v -i d u a l s rated items i n d i c a t e s that items were r a t e d f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t l y across i n d i v i d u a l s . With regard to order e f f e c t s , the p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i -a b i l i t y explained by Facet Order ( F ) , Scale Order (S) and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s , i n d i c a t e s that there was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n scores r e g a r d l e s s of what f a c e t or s c a l e order an i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e d . 120 Item and Sc a l e E f f e c t s To f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e the l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i -a b i l i t y accounted f o r by how items f u n c t i o n e d when r a t e d i n two contexts (IA, PIA i n t e r a c t i o n s ) , a H o t e l l i n g s T was pe r -formed f o r each f a c e t of the s c a l e , u s i n g the T r i a n g u l a r R e g r e s s i o n Package (TRP; Le & T e n i s c i , 1977). The hypothesis t e s t e d was t h a t the mean of each item was the same when r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n and on Ag g r e s s i o n . 2 Table 9 r e p o r t s the H o t e l l i n g s T and a s s o c i a t e d F v a l u e s f o r each f a c e t of the s c a l e . As d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y , each item occurred twice on the s c a l e , r a t e d once f o r a s s e r t i o n and once f o r a g g r e s s i o n . As 2 s i g n i f i c a n t T values were obtained f o r a l l f a c e t s , each item w i t h i n each f a c e t was then t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e . To do t h i s , the mean of each item r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n was compared to the mean of the same item r a t e d on Ag g r e s s i o n . Throughout Table 10 to 13, d i f f e r e n c e s between means of items preceeded by a negative s i g n (-) i n d i c a t e the mean of t h a t item was h i g h e r on A s s e r t i o n than A g g r e s s i o n . Con-v e r s e l y , p o s i t i v e mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i c a t e the mean f o r t h a t item was h i g h e r on A g g r e s s i o n than A s s e r t i o n . Each t a b l e r e p o r t s the means f o r each item on A g g r e s s i o n and A s s e r t i o n , d i f f e r e n c e s i n means, simultaneous confidence i n t e r v a l s and s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 l e v e l . A l l items are rank ordered w i t h -i n item type from the l a r g e s t to the s m a l l e s t d i f f e r e n c e . 121 Table 9 2 H o t e l l i n g s T and F's f o r Each Scale Facet Facet p •» df Verbal Behavior 134-30.0 413.9 30,357 Behavior Components 8093.0 347.8 22,364 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s 13580.0 390.5 32,356 Verbal Statements 10370.0 493.1 20,368 * The F value was s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) f o r every f a c e t 122 Verbal Behavior Facet Table 10 i n d i c a t e s t h a t , of the 30 items i n t h i s f a c e t , 27 functioned as expected. T h i r t e e n of 14 items hypothesized to represent a s s e r t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t i n the a s s e r t i o n d i r e c t i o n . Item 30 (spontaneous exclamations of i r r i t a t i o n and d i s g u s t at another person) was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , but r a t h e r than f u n c t i o n i n g as an a s s e r t i o n item, functioned as an aggres-s i o n item. S i m i l a r l y , 12 of 13 items hypothesized to represent ag-g r e s s i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t i n the c o r r e c t d i r e c t i o n . Item 18 (using the word " I " very f r e q u e n t l y ) functioned as a s i g n i f i c a n t a s s e r t i v e item. . Of the three items hypothesized to be unasser-t i v e , two behaved as expected and were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Item 1 (speaker makes derogatory statements about s e l f ) f u nctioned s i g n i f i c a n t l y as an aggressive item. Be h a v i o r a l Components Facet Of the 22 items i n t h i s f a c e t , 10 were hypothesized to represent a s s e r t i o n , and 9 to represent aggression. Three un-a s s e r t i v e items were expected to be n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 11 i n d i c a t e s that a l l items intended to represent a s s e r t i o n functioned i n the c o r r e c t d i r e c t i o n . A l l items achieved s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l , w i t h the exception of Item 17 (expansive gestures) which d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . S i m i l a r l y , a l l items expected to have a higher mean on Aggres-s i o n than A s s e r t i o n functioned i n t h i s manner. A l l aggression T a b l e 10 M e a n s , C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s a n d R a n k e d M e a n D i f f e r e n c e s o f I t e m s w i t h i n V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t M e a n s T y p e o f I t e m A g g r e s s i o n A s s e r t i o n A s s e r t i o n ( 2 9 ) g i v i n g a n d a c c e p t i n g s i n c e r e c o m p l i m e n t s v . . 1.23 4 . 8 6 - 3 . 9 7 -3.30 - 3 . 6 4 ( 2 1 ) s t a t i n g f e e l i n g s h o n e s t l y 1 . 5 7 4 . 7 4 - 3 . 7 6 - 2 . 5 9 - 3 . 1 7 ( 7) s p e a k i n g v o i c e p u t s o t h e r s a t e a s e 1 . 1 4 4 . 2 2 - 3 . 6 3 - 2 . 5 3 - 3 . 0 8 ( 9 ) s e n d i n g " I " m e s s a g e s 1 . 5 7 4.52 -3.60 -2.30 - 2 . 9 5 ( 2 4 ) w e l l m o d u l a t e d v o i c e 1.32 4.24 -3.52 - 2 . 3 3 - 2 . 9 3 ( 2 7 ) d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n o f f e e l i n g s 1 . 8 7 4 . 7 7 - 3 . 5 4 -2.27 -2.90 (16) a b l e t o s a y ' n o ' w i t h o u t f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1 . 9 3 4o59 - 3 . 4 6 - 1 . 8 6 - 2 . 6 6 ( 1 3 ) m a k i n g d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t s 2.17 4 . 6 4 -3.19 - 1 . 7 3 - 2 . 4 6 (26) d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f w a n t s 2.27 4 . 6 6 - 3 . 1 2 - 1 . 6 6 - 2 . 3 9 ( 1 1 ) m a k i n g o b j e c t i v e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t a n g e r 1 . 7 3 3 . 9 5 - 3 . 0 2 - 1 . 4 3 - 2 . 2 2 ( 1 7 ) d i r e c t l y a s k i n g o t h e r s t o c h a n g e b e h a v i o r w h i c h y o u f i n d o f f e n s i v e 2.32 4 . 3 7 - 2 o 8 4 - 1.25 -2.05 ( 5) s p e a k i n g w i t h o u t f i l l e r w o r d s o r p a u s e s 2.09 3.70 -2.50 - . 7 2 0 - 1.61 ( 8) a s k i n g " w h y " f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n 2 . 2 2 3 . 7 3 - 2 . 3 7 - 0658 - 1.51 (30) s p o n t a n e o u s e x c l a m a t i o n s o f i r r i t a t i o n a n d d i s g u s t a t a n o t h e r p e r s o n 4 . 2 1 ' 1 . 9 9 2 . 9k- 1 . 4 9 2 . 2 2 A g g r e s s i o n ( 1 2 ) n a m e c a l l i n g 4 . 7 7 1 . 0 8 3-35 4.03 3 . 6 9 ( 1 0 ) s p e a k i n g w i t h d i s r e g a r d f o r o t h e r s r i g h t s 4 , 6 4 1 . 1 1 3.03 4.03 3 . 5 3 ( 1 9 ) v e r b a l l y d i s c o u n t i n g a n o t h e r p e r s o n 4 . 5 7 1 . 2 1 2 o 8 7 3 . 8 5 3 . 3 6 ( 2 2 ) u s i n g w o r d s w h i c h b l a m e a n o t h e r 4 . 4 8 1 . 1 8 2 . 8 6 3 - 7 5 3.30 ( 2 8 ) m a k i n g v e r b a l a c c u s a t i o n s 4 050 1.25 2 . 7 8 3 . 7 3 3.26 C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l D i f f e r e n c e L o w e r U p p e r B e t w e e n L i m i t L i m i t M e a n s 124 Table 10 (continued) Means, Confidence I n t e r v a l s and Ranked Mean D i f f e r e n c e s of Items w i t h i n V e r b a l Behavior Facet Means Confidence I n t e r v a l D i f f e r e n c e Between Means Type of Item Aggression A s s e r t i o n Lower L i m i t Upper L i m i t ( 2) answering f o r another person 3-98 1.23 2.21 3.29 2.75 (23) speaking c r i t i c a l l y of another person when they are not present 3-99 1.27 2.13 3.30 2.72 (14) responding w i t h a c l e v e r put down when someone i n s u l t s you 4.00 1.72 1.54 3.01 2.28 (25) loud v o i c e 3.81 2.11 • 991 2.42 1.70 ( 6) f r e q u e n t l y using the word "you" 3-58 1.89 .847 2.54 I.69 (15) expressing h o s t i l i t y 4.05 2.60 .558 2.35 1.46 ( 3) making demands of others 3.69 2.40 .319 2.19 1.29 (18) using the word " I " very f r e q u e n t l y 2.10 3-97 -2.69 -1.05 -1.87a N e u t r a l ( 1) speaker makes derogatory statements about s e l f 1.90 1 .10 .159 1.44 • 799a ( 4) unable to say 'no* without f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1.72 1.34 - .363 1.12 .380* (20) f r e q u e n t l y using pauses or f i l l e r words (e.g. urn, ah) 1 .71 I.63 - .526 .675 .07^* not s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05); non-asterisked items d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the d i r e c t i o n intended item d i d not behave as expected 1 2 5 Table 11 Means, Confidence I n t e r v a l s and Ranked Mean D i f f e r e n c e s of Items w i t h i n the B e h a v i o r a l Components Facet Means Confidence I n t e r v a l D i f f e r e n c e Between Means Type of Item Aggression A s s e r t i o n Lower L i m i t Upper L i m i t A s s e r t i o n ( 6 ) a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g 1 . 1 3 0 4 . 6 8 0 - 3 . 8 9 0 - 3 . 2 0 0 - 3 . 5 5 0 ( 1 3 ) allows others to f i n i s h t a l k i n g 1 . 2 1 0 4 . 4 7 0 - 3 = 7 2 0 -2.810 - 3 . 2 7 0 ( 9 ) s m i l i n g warmly 1.140 4.180 - 3 . 5 1 0 - 2 . 5 6 0 -3.040 ( 1 6 ) r e l a x e d posture 1 . 2 7 0 4.280 - 3 . 4 5 0 - 2 . 5 8 0 - 3 . 0 2 0 ( 1 5 ) assured composure 1 . 7 1 0 4 . 7 1 0 - 3 . 5 0 0 - 2 . 5 0 0 - 3 . 0 0 0 ( 2 1 ) r e l a x e d hand motions 1 . 2 7 0 4 . 2 6 0 - 3 . 4 8 0 - 2 . 5 0 0 - 2 . 9 9 0 ( 1 2 ) d i r e c t eye contact w i t h other person 1 . 9 9 0 4 o 7 5 0 - 3 . 3 ^ 0 - 2 . 1 8 0 - 2 . 7 6 0 ( 1 0 ) d i r e c t l y faces the person being spoken to 2 . 3 0 0 4 . 7 4 0 - 3 . 0 7 0 - 1 . 7 9 0 - 2 . 4 3 0 ( 1 1 ) standing e r e c t w i t h f e e t apart 2 . 7 3 0 3 . 6 8 0 - 1 . 6 8 0 - .214 - .948 ( 1 7 ) expansive gestures 2 . 5 1 0 3 . 0 8 0 - 1 o 2 6 o . 1 2 1 - . 5 6 8 * Aggression -( 2 2 ) sneering 4 . 4 6 0 1 . 0 9 0 3 . 0 0 0 3 . 7 5 0 3 . 3 7 0 ( 8 ) f i s t pounding 4 . 4 5 0 1 . 3 7 0 2 . 5 9 0 3 . 5 7 0 3 . 0 8 0 ( 3 ) s a r c a s t i c s m i l i n g 4 . 1 2 0 1 . 1 3 0 2 . 5 8 0 3 . 3 9 0 2 . 9 8 0 ( 4 ) f i n g e r p o i n t i n g 4 . 2 2 0 1 . 3 3 0 ^ 2 . 3 8 0 3.4oo 2 . 8 9 0 ( 1 9 ) narrowed eyes 3 - 9 9 0 1 . 2 8 0 2 . 2 1 0 3 ° 2 1 0 2 . 7 1 0 ( 2 0 ) s t i f f body posture 3 . 2 6 0 1 . 3 4 0 1 . 3 5 0 2 . 4 9 0 1 . 9 2 0 ( 1 ) abrupt gestures 3 . 4 5 0 1 . 7 4 0 1 . 1 1 0 2 . 2 9 0 1 . 7 0 0 ( 5 ) e r e c t stance w i t h hands on hips 3 . 5 2 0 2 . 0 6 0 • 7 9 7 2 . 1 3 0 1 . 4 6 0 (14) prolonged eye contact 3 o 2 5 0 2 . 9 1 0 - . 4 1 6 1 . 1 1 0 . 3 4 5 * 126 Table 11 (continued) Means, Confidence I n t e r v a l s and Ranked Mean D i f f e r e n c e s of Items w i t h i n the B e h a v i o r a l Components Facet Confidence Means I n t e r v a l D i f f e r e n c e Lower Upper Between Type of Item Aggression A s s e r t i o n L i m i t L i m i t Means N e u t r a l (18) nervous mannerisms 2=150 1.260 .349 1.420 .884 a ( 2) minimal eye contact w i t h 1.910 1.220 .146 1.250 . 6 9 7 a other person ( 7) standing or s i t t i n g w i t h 1-330 1.300 - .362 .431 .034* stooped shoulders not s i g n i f i c a n t (p< o 0 5 ) ; non-asterisked items d i f f e r e n t i a t e , s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the d i r e c t i o n intended item d i d not behave as expected 127 items were s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h the exception of Item 14 (prolong-ed eye c o n t a c t ) . One unassertive item was not s i g n i f i c a n t as expected; however, Items 2 (minimal eye contact w i t h other per-son) and 18 (nervous mannerisms) behaved as s i g n i f i c a n t aggres-s i v e items. P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s Facet As i n d i c a t e d i n Table 12, a l l 15 items w i t h i n t h i s f a c e t hypothesized to represent a s s e r t i o n behaved as expected and were s i g n i f i c a n t . A l l 14 items keyed to represent aggression functioned i n the c o r r e c t d i r e c t i o n ; however, Items 10 (author-i t a t i v e ) and 26 ( f o r c e f u l ) f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . As expected, two of the three items hypothesized to be unassertive were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Item 7 (anxious) functioned as a s i g n i f i c a n t aggressive item. Verbal Statements Facet As Table 13 i l l u s t r a t e s , a l l 20 items w i t h i n t h i s f a c e t functioned i n t h e i r intended d i r e c t i o n s . A l l nine items hypothesized to represent a s s e r t i o n f u n c t i o n e d p r o p e r l y and achieved s i g n i f i c a n c e . A l l e i g h t aggressive items f u n c t i o n e d as expected; however,'Item 4 ("I want another steak ...) f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . As expected, a l l three unassertive items f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . 128 T a b l e 1 2 M e a n s , C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s a n d R a n k e d M e a n D i f f e r e n c e s o f I t e m s w i t h i n t h e P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t F a c e t M e a n s C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l L o w e r U p p e r D i f f e r e n c e B e t w e e n T y p e o f I t e m A g g r e s s i o n A s s e r t i o n L i m i t L i m i t M e a n s A s s e r t i o n ( 4 ) a p p r e c i a t i v e 1 . 3 0 0 4 . 5 9 0 - 3 . 7 4 0 2 . 8 3 0 - 3 . 2 9 0 ( 5 ) i n t e g r a t e d 1 . 4 2 0 4 . 7 0 0 - 3 . 8 1 0 - 2 . 7 5 0 - 3 . 2 8 0 ( 2 3 ) o p e n - m i n d e d 1 . 2 4 0 4 . 5 1 0 - 3 . 7 7 0 - 2 . 7 7 0 - 3 . 2 7 0 ( 9 ) s e c u r e 1 . 4 5 0 4 . 6 8 0 - 3 . 7 3 0 - 2 . 7 4 0 - 3 . 2 4 0 ( 1 5 ) s u p p o r t i v e 1 . 2 2 0 4 . 3 0 0 - 3 . 6 0 0 - 2 . 5 6 0 - 3 . 0 8 0 ( 2 2 ) s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g 1 . 7 0 0 4 . 7 7 0 - 3 . 6 3 0 - 2 . 5 0 0 - 3 . 0 7 0 ( 2 5 ) c a r i n g 1 . 3 0 0 4 . 3 1 0 - 3 . 5 8 0 - 2 . 4 4 0 - 3 . 0 1 0 (3D r e s p o n s i b l e 1 . 7 1 0 4 . 6 7 0 - 3 . 5 3 0 - 2 . 3 9 0 - 2 . 9 6 0 ( 3 ) s e l f - c o n f i d e n t 1 . 8 7 0 4 . 8 2 0 - 3 . 5 6 0 - 2 . 3 5 0 - 2 . 9 5 0 ( 2 1 ) s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g 1 . 6 0 0 4 . 3 7 0 - 3 . 3 6 0 - 2 . 1 8 0 - 2 . 7 7 0 ( 2 9 ) i n t i m a t e 1 . 3 2 0 4 . 0 1 0 - 3 o 2 8 0 - 2 . 0 9 0 - 2 . 6 9 0 ( 1 7 ) t o l e r a n t 1 . 2 6 0 3 . 8 9 0 - 3 . 1 9 0 - 2 . 0 6 0 - 2 . 6 2 0 ( 8 ) f o r g i v i n g 1 . 3 4 0 3 . 7 2 0 - 3 . 0 2 0 - 1 . 7 6 0 - 2 . 3 9 0 ( 1 1 ) s p o n t a n e o u s 2 . 5 2 0 4 . 1 0 0 - 2 . 4 1 0 - . 7 6 2 - 1 . 5 9 0 ( 6 ) y i e l d i n g 1 . 3 5 0 2 . 6 3 0 - 1 . 9 2 0 - . 6 5 0 - 1 . 2 9 0 A g g r e s s i o n ( 2 ) a b u s i v e 4 o 8 2 0 1 . 0 7 0 3 . 4 3 0 4 . 0 8 0 3 - 7 5 0 ( 1 2 ) d e s t r u c t i v e 4 . 7 7 0 1 . 1 3 0 3 . 2 6 0 4 . 0 2 0 3.64o ( 3 2 ) p u n i t i v e 4 . 7 3 0 1 . 1 6 0 3 . 1 7 0 3 . 9 7 0 3 . 5 7 0 ( 3 0 ) b l a m i n g 4 o 6 9 0 1 . 1 9 0 3 . 0 9 0 3 . 9 0 0 3 . 4 9 0 ( 1 3 ) c h r o n i c a l l y a n g r y 4 . 5 2 0 1 . 0 8 0 3 . 0 0 0 3 . 8 7 0 3 . 4 3 0 ( 1 9 ) b e l i t t l i n g 4 . 4 8 0 1 . 0 8 0 2 . 9 2 0 3 . 8 9 0 3 . 4 1 0 ( 1 ) o f f e n s i v e 4 . 6 8 0 1 . 2 8 0 2 . 9 2 0 3 . 8 6 0 3 . 4 0 0 ( 1 4 ) e n c r o a c h i n g 4 . 1 6 0 1 . 2 5 0 2 . 3 1 0 3 . 5 2 0 2 . 9 2 0 ( 1 6 ) s e l f - r i g h t e o u s 4 . 2 9 0 1 . 4 2 0 2 . 2 9 0 3 . ^ - 5 0 2 . 8 7 0 ( 2 0 ) t a c t l e s s 4 . 0 9 0 1 . 2 3 0 2 . 2 2 0 3 . 4 9 0 2 . 8 6 0 ( 2 8 ) i m p o s i n g 4 . 4 7 0 1 . 7 2 0 2 . 0 9 0 3 . 4 1 0 2 . 7 5 0 129 Table 12 (continued) Means, Confidence I n t e r v a l s and Ranked Mean D i f f e r e n c e s of Items w i t h i n the P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t Facet Means Confidence I n t e r v a l D i f f e r e n c e Type of Item Aggression A s s e r t i o n Lower L i m i t Upper L i m i t Between Means (24) argumentative 4.230 1.720 1.900 3.120 2.510 (10) a u t h o r i t a t i v e 3-590 2.810 - .116 1.680 .781* (26) f o r c e f u l 3.860 3 .170 - .175 1.540 .682* N e u t r a l ( 7) anxious 2.940 1.610 • 565 2.110 1.34oa (27) h e l p l e s s 1.730 1.080 .094 1.210 .650* (18) submissive 1.340 1 , 1 9 0 - .299 .588 .145* not s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05); non-asterisked i t e m s • d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the d i r e c t i o n intended item d i d not behave as expected 1 3 0 Table 1 3 Means, Confidence I n t e r v a l s and Ranked Mean D i f f e r e n c e s of Items w i t h i n the Verbal Statements Facet Means Type of Item Aggression A s s e r t i o n Confidence I n t e r v a l D i f f e r e n c e Lower Upper Between L i m i t L i m i t Means A s s e r t i o n ( 1 9 ) " I would p r e f e r going to the 1 0 1 8 0 movies t o n i g h t r a t h e r than to the concert." ( 5 ) " I understand how you f e e l but 1 . 1 4 0 I don't f e e l l i k e t h a t . " ( 8 ) "You d i d a f a n t a s t i c job at 1 . 1 5 0 the meeting." ( 7 ) " I don't r e a l l y know enough 1 . 1 2 0 about t h a t to comment r i g h t now." ( 1 ) " I don't understand why you 1 . 2 5 0 would say t h a t . I f e e l t h a t I have been doing as much work as you . . „ ." ( 1 6 ) " I see your p o i n t , but there 1 . 2 8 0 are other s o l u t i o n s to the problem." ( 3 ) "Excuse me; I have to go now." 1 . 2 1 0 ( 1 1 ) "T get very angry when you I . 5 6 0 leave your c l o t h e s a l l over the p l a c e . " ( 1 3 ) " I r e a l l y l i k e your shoes„ 1 . 2 7 0 Where d i d you get them?" 4 . 7 3 0 - 3 . 8 8 0 - 3 . 2 3 0 - 3 . 5 6 0 4 . 6 6 0 4 . 5 2 0 4 . 1 7 0 • 3 . 8 4 0 - 3 . 2 1 0 - 3 . 5 2 0 4 . 5 9 0 - 3 . 7 9 0 - 3 . 1 0 0 - 3 . 4 4 0 4 . 5 3 0 - 3 . 7 8 0 - 3 . 0 4 0 - 3 . 4 1 0 4 . 6 1 0 - 3 . 7 6 0 - 2 o 9 6 0 - 3 . 3 6 0 - 3 . 6 6 0 - 2 . 8 3 0 - 3 . 2 4 0 4 . 2 2 0 - 3 . 4 7 0 -2.550 - 3 . 0 1 0 4 . 4 6 0 - 3 . 4 0 0 - 2 . 4 2 0 - 2 . 9 1 0 - 3 . 3 7 0 - 2 o 4 2 0 - 2 o 9 0 0 Aggression ( 6) "You're the problem--you need 4.630 to see a p s y c h i a t r i s t . " (17) "You shouldn't have c a l l e d me 4.550 s t u p i d . I f anyone's s t u p i d , i t ' s you." ( 1 8 ) "You're never around when I 4.290 need you. A l l you ever t h i n k about i s y o u r s e l f . (20) " I want to go shopping r i g h t 4 . 4 4 0 now. I don't care i f you're busy." (10) "Just because I'm smarter than 4.06o you doesn't mean you can't ask me a ques t i o n . " 1 . 2 1 0 3 . 0 6 0 3 . 7 9 0 l o 3 4 0 2 . 7 6 0 3 . 6 6 0 1 . 3 5 0 2 . 4 4 0 3 . 4 2 0 1 . 5 4 0 2 . 4 0 0 1 . 3 8 0 2 . 1 5 0 3 . 3 9 0 3 . 2 0 0 3 . 4 2 0 3 . 2 1 0 2 . 9 3 0 2 . 9 0 0 2 o 6 8 0 1 3 1 Table 1 3 (continued) Means, Confidence I n t e r v a l s and Ranked Mean D i f f e r e n c e s of Items w i t h i n the Ve r b a l Statements Facet Type of Item Means Aggression A s s e r t i o n Confidence I n t e r v a l Lower L i m i t Upper •Limi t D i f f e r e n c e Between Means ( 2 ) " I think you don't know 4.040 what's good f o r y o u 0 " (14) ."If you t h i n k I'm going to 3-990 give up t h i s promotion to make you happy, you're wrong." ( 4) " I want another steak r i g h t 3«470 now. I ordered i t r a r e and i t ' s w e l l done 0" 1 . 6 7 0 l o 9 2 0 2.810 1.810 1.440 . 0 4 9 2 c 9 3 0 2 o 7 0 0 1 . 3 8 0 2 . 3 7 0 2 . 0 7 0 .664* N e u t r a l ( 1 5 ) " I guess I'm j u s t s t u p i d . I 1.440 never seem to do anything r i g h t . " ( 1 2 ) "I'm r e a l l y too t i r e d to go 1 . 2 8 0 out t o n i g h t . W e l l ..„ I ' l l go." ( 9 ) " I b e t t e r not go shopping w i t h 1 . 3 9 0 you 0 . . W e l l , you know how upset my f r i e n d gets when I spend my money." 1 . 1 2 0 - . 1 3 8 1 . 2 0 0 . 2 8 2 1 . 3 ' 9 0 - o 4 2 3 . 7 7 1 . 4 4 4 .417 . 3 1 6 .081* . 0 0 3 * * not s i g n i f i c a n t ( p < . 0 5 ) ; non-asterisked items d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the d i r e c t i o n intended 132 R e l i a b i l i t y Estimates The next l e v e l of s c a l e analyses i n v o l v e d determining estimates of i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t i e s and informa-t i o n on how each item functioned w i t h i n i t s r e s p e c t i v e sub-s c a l e s . To o b t a i n meaningful i n t e r n a l consistency estimates, and item c o r r e l a t i o n s , i t was f i r s t necessary to provide appro-p r i a t e r e f e r e n t s . This was done by d e f i n i n g subsets of items according to h y p o t h e t i c a l constructs and r a t i n g contexts. Thus, r a t i n g s on the A s s e r t i o n r a t i n g s c a l e of a l l items hypothesized to represent a s s e r t i o n were grouped i n t o f o u r s u b s c a l e s — o n e f o r each of the f o u r f a c e t s . S i m i l a r l y , r a t i n g s on the Aggres-s i o n r a t i n g s c a l e of a l l items hypothesized to represent aggres-s i o n were grouped i n t o f o u r subscales. Items hypothesized to be 'unassertive' were excluded from t h i s a n a l y s i s . Responses to items were analyzed using the LERTAP (Nelson, 197^) item a n a l y s i s computer program. The r e s u l t s are summarized i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . A s s e r t i o n S u b s c a l e s / A s s e r t i o n Ratings Table 14 r e p o r t s the number of items,, i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y estimates, standard d e v i a t i o n , and standard e r r o r of measurement f o r each of the f o u r a s s e r t i o n subscales. The r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the composite ( a l l a s s e r t i o n items w i t h i n the e n t i r e s c a l e ) i s .81 as estimated by Cronbach's Alpha technique. 133 Table 14 A s s e r t i o n Subscale R e l i a b i l i t y and Standard E r r o r of Measurement A s s e r t i o n Subscale w i t h i n Facet Number of Items w i t h i n Subscale R e l i a b i l i t y Estimate Standard D e v i a t i o n Standard E r r o r of Measurement Verbal Behavior 14 .72 6.10 3.14 Beh a v i o r a l Components 10 .86 6.08 2.18 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s 15 .89 7-82 2.55 Verbal 9 .74 4.11 1.98 Statements R e l i a b i l i t y estimate i s c a l c u l a t e d using Hoyt's ANOVA approach 134 These r e l i a b i l i t y estimates are high, c o n s i d e r i n g the l i m i t e d number of items w i t h i n each 'subscale.' This i n d i c a t e s that the items were r a t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y by i n d i v i d u a l s . The mean and standard d e v i a t i o n of each item, and the item c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h subscale and the ' t o t a l a s s e r t i o n s c a l e ' are given i n Appendix M. Wi t h i n the Verbal Behavior subscale, a l l but three items (8, 17, 30) had b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s greater than .25 w i t h the subscale and the ' t o t a l s c a l e ' (see Table M . I . ) . W i t h i n the Behavior Components and P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s f a c e t , a l l items had c o r r e l a t i o n s g r e a t e r than .25 w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e sub-sc a l e s and the ' t o t a l s c a l e ' (see Tables M.2. and M.3«)» Two items w i t h i n the Verbal Statements subscale had b i s e r i a l cor-r e l a t i o n s l e s s than .25 w i t h the subscale and the ' t o t a l s c a l e ' (see Table M.4.). No negative c o r r e l a t i o n s were ob-t a i n e d . The high r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the subscales, and the g e n e r a l l y high item-scale c o r r e l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e that items were r a t e d q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t l y by i n d i v i d u a l s , and that items hypothesized to represent a s s e r t i o n are r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous. Aggression Subscales/Aggression Ratings Table 15 i n d i c a t e s the i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y estimates, standard d e v i a t i o n , and standard e r r o r of measure-ment f o r each of the f o u r aggression subscales. The o v e r a l l r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the composite i s .81 as estimated by Cronbach's alpha. 135 Table 15 Aggression Subscale R e l i a b i l i t i e s and Standard E r r o r of Measurement Aggression Subscale w i t h i n Facet Number of Items w i t h i n Subscale R e l i a b i l i t y Estimate a Standard D e v i a t i o n Standard E r r o r of Measurement Verbal Behavior 13 .85 8.13 3.06 B e h a v i o r a l Components 9 .84 6.37 2.38 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s 14 .82 6.98 2.86 Verbal 8 .77 4.62 2.06 Statements R e l i a b i l i t y estimate c a l c u l a t e d using Hoyt's ANOVA approach 136 Considering the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number of items w i t h i n each subscale, the i n t e r n a l consistency estimates are very high. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t items w i t h i n each subscale were rat e d c o n s i s t e n t l y by i n d i v i d u a l s . Appendix N includes the mean and standard d e v i a t i o n f o r each item, as w e l l as item c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n subscale and ' t o t a l aggression s c a l e . ' A l l items w i t h i n the Be h a v i o r a l Components, P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s and Verbal Statements subscales have c o r r e l a t i o n s great-er than .25 w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e subscales and the ' t o t a l aggression s c a l e . ' Item 2 (using the word " I " very f r e q u e n t l y ) i n the Verbal Behavior subscale c o r r e l a t e d .22 w i t h i t s r e -sp e c t i v e subscale. No negative c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained. Summary A l l a s s e r t i o n and aggression subscales have high i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t i e s , even though the number of items w i t h i n each subscale i s s m a l l . Items w i t h i n subscales had moderate to high c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e subscales and ' t o t a l s c a l e s . ' Of the 48 item-subscale c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h -i n the a s s e r t i o n t o t a l s c a l e , only f i v e were lower than .25. Only one of the 44 item-subscale c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the 'aggres-s i o n t o t a l s c a l e s ' was l e s s than .25- No negative c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t , o v e r a l l , items were r a t e d c o n s i s t -e n t l y by i n d i v i d u a l s and each was rated i n the ' d i r e c t i o n ' 137 hypothesized; items w i t h i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e subscales can be considered homogeneous. Multidi m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g Scale responses were analyzed using the mul t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g program of the NTSYS program (Rohlf, 1978). This p a r t i c u l a r program performs nonmetric s c a l i n g a n a l y s i s w i t h monotpnic: or l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n models. The purpose of using multidimensional s c a l i n g was to i n -v e s t i g a t e the unde r l y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s s e r t i o n and aggression. The term mu l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g a c t u a l l y r e f e r s to a group of techniques, using as input to the program a matrix p r o x i m i t r e s among o b j e c t s . The primary r e s u l t i s a s p a t i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p o i n t s ; each p o i n t r e f l e c t i n g the "under-l y i n g s t r u c t u r e " of the data base. "Stre s s " i s the extent to which these p o i n t s vary from the obtained f i t t e d f u n c t i o n . S t r e s s can range from 0 to +1.0. The c l o s e r the s t r e s s value approaches 0, the b e t t e r the "good-ness of f i t " of the model to the data. Each f a c e t was analyzed twice, once f o r a l l items r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n , and again f o r the same items when ra t e d on Aggres-s i o n . Thus, i n a l l , e ight analyses were performed. Pro x i m i t y matrices were generated using the absolute d i f -ferences of means between each item i n a f a c e t and r a t i n g con-t e x t . As the matrices were symetric, only the lower h a l f , i n c l u d i n g the diagonals, was used as input to the program. For each a n a l y s i s , a maximum of 50 i t e r a t i o n s was used (the program l i m i t a t i o n ) ; a minimum s t r e s s value of .001 was s p e c i f i e d i n the event that 50 i t e r a t i o n s were not r e q u i r e d . For a l l analyses, a l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n model provided the "best f i t to the data. A summary f o r each f a c e t and r a t i n g context i n terms of the number of dimensions p r o v i d i n g the best " f i t , " number of i t e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d , and the s t r e s s value i s pre-sented i n Table 16. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s summarize the r e s u l t s of m u l t i -dimensional s c a l i n g f o r each f a c e t . The p r o j e c t e d item values f o r each dimension are l o c a t e d i n Appendix 0. These values, i n and of themselves, have no meaning; they represent the r e l a t i o n s h i p between distances and p r o x i m i t i e s and are used as coordinates f o r p l o t t i n g each item. Appendix P contains scattergrams of Aggression dimension 1 vs. Aggression dimension 2, and A s s e r t i o n dimension 1 vs. A s s e r t i o n dimension 2 f o r each r e l e v a n t f a c e t . Appendix Q includes the mean, standard d e v i a t i o n f o r each obtained dimension, as w e l l as the c o r r e l a t i o n s between dimen-sions f o r each f a c e t . The r e s u l t s of multidimensional s c a l -i n g f o r each f a c e t are discussed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . Verbal Behavior Facet This f a c e t contains 30 items. Thus, two lower t r i a n g u l a r matrices (30 x 30) were generated; one f o r items when r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n , and one f o r items rated on Aggression. 139 T a b l e 1 6 S u m m a r y T a b l e f o r M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g : L i n e a r S o l u t i o n s F a c e t a n d R a t i n g C o n t e x t D i m e n s i o n O b t a i n e d N u m b e r o f I t e r a t i o n s S t r e s s V a l u e V e r b a l B e h a v i o r A s s e r t i o n 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 V e r b a l B e h a v i o r A g g r e s s i o n 2 50 . 0 0 1 B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s A s s e r t i o n 2 50 . 0 0 2 B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s A g g r e s s i o n 2 50 . 0 0 4 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s A s s e r t i o n 2 50 . 0 0 1 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s A g g r e s s i o n 2 2 1 . 0 0 1 V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s A s s e r t i o n 1 1 2 . 0 0 0 V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 A g g r e s s i o n 14-0 For items rated on A s s e r t i o n , a one dimensional l i n e a r s o l -u t i o n was obtained. A f t e r 10 i t e r a t i o n s , the s t r e s s value was 0.0, i n d i c a t i n g the data f i t the model p e r f e c t l y . For the same items rated on Aggression, a two dimensional s o l u t i o n was o b t a i n -ed a f t e r 50 i t e r a t i o n s . The r e s u l t i n g s t r e s s value was .001. Figure P . l . i n Appendix P i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two aggression dimensions. The s c a t t e r diagram i n d i c a t e s that although the r e l a t i o n s h i p appears to be l i n e a r , i t i s discontinuous, w i t h a s s e r t i o n and aggression items c l u s t e r -i n g at opposite "poles." This i n d i c a t e s t h a t items were e i t h e r r a t e d high on a s s e r t i o n and low on aggression or v i c e v e r s a . Figure 9 i l l u s t r a t e s the s c a t t e r diagram of the A s s e r t i o n dimension p l o t t e d against the most dominant (defined by l a r g e s t standard d e v i a t i o n ) Aggression dimension. To i n t e r p r e t the s c a t t e r p l o t c o r r e c t l y , p o s i t i v e numbers on the Aggression dimen-s i o n i n d i c a t e higher values on aggression, whereas a negative number on the o r d i n a l a x i s i n d i c a t e s a higher value on the A s s e r t i o n dimension. The aggression items c l u s t e r e d i n the top r i g h t hand cor-ner of the s c a t t e r p l o t , i n d i c a t i n g high values on aggression and low values on a s s e r t i o n . The items f a l l i n g i n t h i s " c l u s t e r " are l i s t e d below w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e coordinates: - name c a l l i n g 1.229 1.140 - speaking w i t h d i s r e g a r d f o r 1.208 1.06l others r i g h t s - using words which blame another 1.160 - v e r b a l l y d i s c o u n t i n g another 1.140 .962 1.012 person .- answering f o r another person 1.126 .692 -0.87 -0.66 -0.45 1.23 • * 0.97 -0.24 -0.02 0.t» 0.40 0.61 0.82 o H w p o H EH c r ; to to < 0.71 0.45 0. 19 -0.07 -0.33 -0.59 -0.85 - 1 . 11 -1.37 • * 1.03 » « -0.98 -0.76 -0.55 - 0 . 3 V -0.13 - AGGRESSION DIMENSION 1 0.08 0.29 0.51 0.72 0.93 1.14 Figure 9- S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n dimension and aggression dimension 1: v e r b a l behavior f a c e t 1.23 0.97 0.71 0.45 0. 19 -0.07 -0.33 -0.59 -0.85 -I .11 -1.37 i 1.112 .972 1.099 .697 .789 .702 .673 -476 .522 .605 A d d i t i o n a l l y , one item o r i g i n a l l y keyed as a s s e r t i o n , but p e r c e i v e d and r a t e d by t r a i n e r s as a g g r e s s i v e , i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h i s " c l u s t e r " as w e l l . The item " e x p r e s s i n g h o s t i l i t y " (.185, .735) f a l l s somewhat away from the main c l u s t e r , but s t i l l q u i t e h i g h on a g g r e s s i o n . Conversely, the a s s e r t i o n items tend to c l u s t e r i n the lower l e f t hand c o r n e r . These items w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e co-o r d i n a t e s are as f o l l o w s : - speaking without pauses or f i l l e r words -.571 -.457 - a s k i n g "why?" f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n -.592 -.378 - making o b j e c t i v e statements about anger -.743 -.670 - speaking v o i c e puts others a t ease -.928 -.976 - w e l l modulated v o i c e -.942 -.889 - d i r e c t l y a s k i n g others to change behavior which you f i n d o f f e n s i v e -1.031 -.315 - sending " I " messages -1.134 -.761 - making d i r e c t statements -1.217 -.409 - d i r e c t statement of wants -1.230 -.348 - s t a t i n g f e e l i n g s h o n e s t l y -1.285 -.761 - d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n of f e e l i n g s -1.306 -.595 - g i v i n g and a c c e p t i n g s i n c e r e compliments -I.368 -.929 - making v e r b a l a c c u s a t i o n s - speaking c r i t i c a l l y of another person when they are not pre -sent - responding w i t h a c l e v e r put down when someone i n s u l t s you - f r e q u e n t l y u s i n g the word "you" - loud v o i c e 143 The item 'using the word " I " very f r e q u e n t l y ' (-.757> -.449) o r i g i n a l l y hypothesized to be aggressive, was perceived by t r a i n e r s as a s s e r t i v e , and c l u s t e r e d w i t h the a s s e r t i o n items. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the item 'able to say "nQ" without f e e l -i n g g u i l t y " (-1.182, .522) which i s described i n the research l i t e r a t u r e as a major component of a s s e r t i v e behavior, had a very high value on a s s e r t i o n , but s u r p r i s i n g l y , a lso a r e l a t i v e -l y high value on aggression. A l l three unassertive items c l u s t e r e d together i n the top l e f t corner of the s c a t t e r diagram. These items were: - speaker makes derogatory s t a t e - 1.229 1.140 ments about s e l f - unable to say "no" without 1.050 -.674 f e e l i n g g u i l t y - f r e q u e n t l y using pauses or .852 -.679 f i l l e r words The f a c t that the items hypothesized to represent asser-t i o n , aggression and 'unassertion' c l u s t e r e d t i g h t l y w i t h i n meaningful contexts lends strong construct v a l i d i t y f o r each h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t . B e h a v i o r a l Components Facet The B e h a v i o r a l Components f a c e t has 22 items. Two 22 x 22 lower t r i a n g u l a r matrices were generated; one f o r items when r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n and one f o r items when ra t e d on Aggression. 144 For items rated, on A s s e r t i o n , a two dimensional l i n e a r s o l u t i o n was obtained a f t e r 50 i t e r a t i o n s . The r e s u l t i n g s t r e s s value was .002 (Table 16). When the same items were rat e d on Aggression, a s t r e s s value of .004 was obtained w i t h a two dimensional l i n e a r s o l u t i o n . • F i f t y i t e r a t i o n s were r e -quir e d to o b t a i n t h i s s t r e s s value. Figure P.2. i n Appendix P shows t h a t when the two Aggres-s i o n dimensions are p l o t t e d together, the items are f a i r l y even-l y d i s t r i b u t e d along the f i t t e d f u n c t i o n . I n c o n t r a s t , Figure P.3. i n the same Appendix, i l l u s t r a t e s t hat when the two Asser-t i o n dimensions are p l o t t e d together, the a s s e r t i o n and aggres-s i o n items tend to c l u s t e r together at the "poles" of the func-t i o n , r a t h e r than being as evenly d i s t r i b u t e d . Figure 10 i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between items when the dominant A s s e r t i o n and the dominant Aggression dimension are p l o t t e d against each other. Most aggression items c l u s t e r i n the top r i g h t hand cor-ner of the s c a t t e r diagram. However, u n l i k e the other f a c e t s , the spread among p o i n t s r e p r e s e n t i n g aggression items i s con-s i d e r a b l e . Aggression items tended to group together i n the top r i g h t hand corner. These were: sneering 1.066 1.490 s a r c a s t i c s m i l i n g 1.043 1.197 narrowed eyes .945 1.087 f i n g e r p o i n t i n g .915 1.283 - 1 . 0 0 -O.Tt - 0 . 4 8 - 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 5 0 .31 0 . 5 7 0 . 8 3 1.10 1 .36 • • —t + — — «. +_; + 1 . + «. . . < + •——4 1.07 • 0 . 8 3 0 . 6 0 0 . 36 CM o H 00 . s H n o tH EH CO 00 0 . 1 3 - 0 . 1 1 - 0 . 3 4 - 0 . 5 7 - 0 . 8 1 - 1 . 0 4 - 1 . 2 8 • * . » » » • «• • • • • ^ 1 . 1 3 - 0 . 8 7 - 0 . 6 1 - 0 . 3 5 - 0 . 0 8 - AGGRESSION DIMENSION 1 0 . 1 8 0 . 4 4 0 . 7 0 0.96 1.23 1.49 1.07 0 .83 0 . 6 0 0 . 13 - 0 . 1 1 - 0 . 3 4 - 0 . 5 7 - 0 . 8 1 - 1 . 2 8 Figure 10. S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n dimension 2 and aggression dimension 1: be h a v i o r a l components f a c e t f—1 f i s t pounding abrupt gestures erect stance w i t h hands on hips .892 .662 .462 1.482 .639 .695 • S t i f f body posture 1 (.909, .484) was somewhat f u r t h e r from those c l u s t e r e d items mentioned above. The item 'pro-longed eye contact' (-.070, .477) was also an o u t l i e r from the main c l u s t e r of aggression items. A s s e r t i o n items were grouped i n the lower l e f t corner of the s c a t t e r diagram. Items i n t h i s c l u s t e r were: s m i l i n g warmly -.900 -1.128 re l a x e d hand motions -.951 -1.036 r e l a x e d posutre -.964 -I.036 allows others to f i n i s h t a l k i n g -1.094 -1.079 a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g -1.234 -1.135 assured composure -1.253 -.705 d i r e c t eye contact w i t h other person -1.277 -.496 d i r e c t l y faces the person being spoken to -1.271 -.263 'Standing e r e c t w i t h f e e t apart' (-.568, .067) and 'expansive gestures' (-.179. -.103) a l s o hypothesized to be a s s e r t i v e were o u t l i e r s from the main c l u s t e r . A l l three 'unassertive' items c l u s t e r e d i n the upper l e f t hand corner: nervous mannerisms .956 .360 minimal eye contact w i t h .981 -.561 other person standing or s i t t i n g w i t h .932 -.989 stooped shoulders 147 A l t h o u g h , t h e r e w a s s o m e w h a t m o r e " s p r e a d " a m o n g i t e m s i n t h i s f a c e t , t h e i t e m s h y p o t h e s i z e d t o r e p r e s e n t a s s e r t i o n , a g g r e s s i o n , a n d ' u n a s s e r t i o n * f o r t h e m o s t p a r t d o c l u s t e r t o g e t h e r . P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s F a c e t T h i s f a c e t c o n t a i n s 32 i t e m s . T w o l o w e r t r i a n g u l a r m a t r i c e s (32 x 32) w e r e g e n e r a t e d ; o n e f o r i t e m s r a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n , a n d o n e f o r i t e m s r a t e d o n A g g r e s s i o n . W h e n i t e m s w e r e r a t e d o n A s s e r t i o n , a t w o d i m e n s i o n a l l i n e a r s o l u t i o n f i t t h e d a t a w e l l , a f t e r 50 i t e r a t i o n s . T h e r e s u l t i n g s t r e s s v a l u e w a s .001. F o r i t e m s r a t e d o n A g g r e s -s i o n , a t w o d i m e n s i o n a l m o d e l p r o v i d e d t h e b e s t f i t , w i t h 21 i t e r a t i o n s a n d s t r e s s o f .001. F i g u r e P.4. a n d P.5« i n A p p e n d i x P i l l u s t r a t e t h e r e l a t i o n -s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o a s s e r t i o n d i m e n s i o n s a n d t h e t w o a g g r e s -s i o n d i m e n s i o n s . E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i t e m s w i t h i n e a c h " c l u s t e r " i n d i c a t e s t h a t a g g r e s s i o n i t e m s c l u s t e r i n t h e t o p l e f t h a n d c o r n e r ; t h e a s s e r t i o n i t e m s c l u s t e r i n t h e l o w e r r i g h t h a n d c o r n e r . F i g u r e 11 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m o s t d o m i n a n t a s s e r t i o n a n d m o s t d o m i n a n t a g g r e s s i o n d i m e n s i o n ( d e f i n e d ) b y t h e i r s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s ) . -—ill— " ° " 5 6 " ° * 3 7 " ° * 1 8 ° - 0 1 ° ' 2 1 0-59 0.78 0.97 CM s O H CO 1.01 0.83 0.64 0.46 0.27 0.09 -0. 09 -0.28 Q S -0.46 o H EH H -0.65 00 <: I -0.83 -0.85 -0.66 -0.47 -0.27 -0.08 o!ll * 7.7o"* o ! ^ " * 1*17'* V.IV'* V.Q7 - AGGRESSION DIMENSION 1 Figure 11. S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n dimension 2 and aggression 1.01 0.83 0.64 0.46 0.27 0.09 -0.09 -0.28 -0.46 -0.65 -0.83 dimension 1: p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s f a c e t co 149 The a s s e r t i o n i t e m s t e n d t o c l u s t e r i n the top l e f t hand c o r n e r of the s c a t t e r p l o t , w i t h h i g h v a l u e s on the a s s e r t i o n d i m e n s i o n and low v a l u e s on the a g g r e s s i o n d i m e n s i o n . They ar e l i s t e d as f o l l o w s w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o o r d i n a t e s : f o r g i v i n g .423 -.791 t o l e r a n t .508 -.830 i n t i m a t e • 575 -.801 s u p p o r t i v e .733 -.856 c a r i n g .739 -.812 s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g .774 -.648 open-minded .849 -.846 a p p r e c i a t i v e .895 -.812 r e s p o n s i b l e .931 -.587 s e c u r e • 937 -.737 i n t e g r a t e d .949 -.754 s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g .985 -.595 s e l f - c o n f i d e n t 1.017 -.502 The i t e m s 'spontaneous' (.622, -.157) and ' y i e l d i n g ' (-.113» -.787) were o u t l i e r s from the main c l u s t e r o f a s s e r -t i o n i t e m s . ' Y i e l d i n g ' r e c e i v e d a low v a l u e on a s s e r t i o n as w e l l as a g g r e s s i o n , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t may have been p e r c e i v e d as an ' u n a s s e r t i v e ' i t e m . C o n v e r s e l y , a g g r e s s i o n i t e m s c l u s t e r e d i n the lower r i g h t hand c o r n e r o f the s c a t t e r p i o t . Items w h i c h were l o -c a t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n are l i s t e d below w i t h t h e i r c o o r d i n a t e s : a b u s i v e -.838 1.072 c h r o n i c a l l y angry -.834 .919 b e l i t t l i n g -.834 .900 d e s t r u c t i v e -.807 1.053 150 p u n i t i v e blaming t a c t l e s s encroaching o f f e n s i v e s e l f - r i g h t e o u s argumentative -.791 -.779 -.762 -.752 -.734 -.668 -.499 -.499 I.036 1.022 .674 .719 1.022 imposing .788 • 759 .891 Items ' a u t h o r i t a t i v e ' (-.010, .407) and ' f o r c e f u l ' (.156, •553) a l s o hypothesized to be aggressive, although s t i l l w i t h -i n the 'aggression c l u s t e r ' had higher means on a s s e r t i o n . The items hypothesized to be 'unassertive' tended to c l u s t e r towards the lower l e f t hand corner of the s c a t t e r p l o t : anxious -.559 .068 Verbal Statements Facet This f a c e t has 20 items. Two 20 x 20 lower t r i a n g u l a r matrices were generated, one f o r items when ra t e d on Asser-t i o n , and one f o r items r a t e d on Aggression. When the items were r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n , a one dimensional l i n e a r s o l u t i o n was obtained. A f t e r 12 i t e r a t i o n s , the s t r e s s value was 0.0. S i m i l a r l y , f o r items r a t e d on Aggression a one dimensional l i n e a r s o l u t i o n w i t h s t r e s s of 0.0 was achieved a f t e r only 10 i t e r a t i o n s . This i n d i c a t e s the models f i t the data p e r f e c t l y . h e l p l e s s submissive -.834 -.779 -.572 -.791 151 Figure 12 i l l u s t r a t e s the p a t t e r n i n g of items r e l a t i v e to the two dimensions. A s s e r t i o n items c l u s t e r i n the upper r i g h t hand corner, 'unassertive' items i n the lower r i g h t hand corner, and aggression items i n the lower l e f t hand corner. To i n t e r p r e t the s c a t t e r p l o t c o r r e c t l y , descending values on the a b s c i s s a r e f e r to i n c r e a s i n g values of 'aggression.' Those items which c l u s t e r together i n the top r i g h t corner of the scattergram are: "I would p r e f e r going to the 1.226 .868 movies .tonight r a t h e r than to the concert." "I understand how you f e e l , hut 1.180 .897 I don't f e e l l i k e t h a t . " "I don't understand why you 1.147 .820 would say t h a t . I f e e l t h a t I have been doing as much work as you. Can you e x p l a i n how you f e e l ? " "You d i d a f a n t a s t i c job at 1.134 .890 the meeting." "I r e a l l y don't know enough 1.095 .910 to comment on that r i g h t now." "I see your p o i n t , but there 1.088 .800 are other s o l u t i o n s to the problem." "I get very angry when you 1.049 .606 leave your c l o t h e s a l l over the place." "Excuse me; I have to go now." .890 .848 " I r e a l l y l i k e your shoes. .857 .806 Where d i d you get them?" S i m i l a r l y , a l l but one item hypothesized to represent aggression c l u s t e r e d together i n the lower l e f t corner of the s c a t t e r diagram. The items and t h e i r coordinates are: - 1 . 3 9 - 1 . 1 5 -0 .91 - 0 . 6 7 -0 .42 -0 .18 0.06 0.30 0.55 0.79 1.23 0.99 0.75 0.51 0.27 0.04 ^ - 0 . 2 0 O H m pq -o.«4 Q ^ -0 .68 O H . EH P£| - 0 . 9 2 W I - 1 . 1 5 * * * * - 1 . 5 2 - 1 . 2 7 - 1 . 0 3 - 0 . 7 9 - 0 . 5 5 - 0 . 3 0 - 0 . 0 6 0.18 0.42 - AGGRESSION DIMENSION 1 0.67 0.91 1.23 0.75 0.51 0.27 -0.20 -0.92 -1.15 Figure 12. S c a t t e r diagram of a s s e r t i o n and aggression dimensions! v e r b a l statements f a c e t 153 " I f you thi n k I'm going to -.627 -1.073 give up t h i s promotion to make you happy, you're crazy." "I t h i n k you don't know whats' -.792 -1.108 good f o r you." "I want to go shopping r i g h t now. -.878 -1.384 I don't care i f you're "busy." "Just because I'm smarter than -.984 -1.122 you doesn't mean you can't ask me a question." "You're never around when I -1.003 -1.281 need you. A l l you ever think about i s y o u r s e l f . " "You shouldn't have c a l l e d me -1.010 -1.460 s t u p i d . I f anyone's s t u p i d , i t ' s you." "You're the problem--you need -1.096 -1.516 to see a p s y c h i a t r i s t . " The item " I want another steak r i g h t now ..." (-.040, -.714) was hypothesized to represent aggression, because of the "demand" component i n c l u d e d . However, i n the H o t e l l i n g s T a n a l y s i s , the mean d i f f e r e n c e when r a t e d on A s s e r t i o n or Aggres s i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t . I n multidimensional s c a l i n g however, the item became an o u t l i e r . A l l three !unassertive' items were grouped i n the lower r i g h t hand corner of the s c a t t e r diagram: "I b e t t e r not go shopping w i t h -.977 .724 you...Well, you know how upset my f r i e n d gets when I spend my money..." "I'm r e a l l y too t i r e d to go out -1.102 .800 t o n i g h t . W e l l . . . I can watch you eat, I g u e s s . . . A l r i g h t . . . I ' l l 'go." "I guess I'm j u s t s t u p i d . I -1.155 .689 never seem to do anything r i g h t . " 2 154 Thus, the l i n e a r model used f i t the data e x c e e d i n g l y w e l l . Summary The r e s u l t s across a l l f a c e t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t items r e p r e -s e n t i n g a s s e r t i o n , a g g r e s s i o n and ' u n a s s e r t i o n ' can be mean-i n g f u l l y r e p r e s e n t e d i n s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . Thus, s t r o n g evidence of c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y has been p r o v i d e d w i t h r e g a r d to components w i t h i n each h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t and the d i f -f e r e n t i a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t s as p e r c e i v e d by a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s . 155 C H A P T E R V S U M M A R Y , C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R F U T U R E R E S E A R C H S u m m a r y o f P r o c e d u r e s T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y w a s t o i d e n t i f y t h e v e r b a l , b e -h a v i o r a l a n d p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s -s i o n . T o a d d r e s s t h i s , a ' p o p u l a t i o n ' o f C a n a d i a n a s s e r t i v e -n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s w a s f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d , t h e n s u r v e y e d . A s c a l e w a s c o n s t r u c t e d w h i c h c o n t a i n e d d e s c r i p t o r s s e -l e c t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s o f a s s e r t i o n a n d a g g r e s s i o n , p r e s e n t e d w i t h o u t s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t s . T h e p i l o t v e r s i o n w a s p r e - t e s t e d o n l o c a l ( V a n c o u v e r , B . C . ) a s s e r -t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s . T h e f i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h e s c a l e c o n s i s t e d o f 10k i t e m s a c r o s s f o u r f a c e t s . V e r b a l B e h a v i o r s , B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s , P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s a n d V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s . S e v e r a l u n a s s e r t i v e i t e m s w e r e i n c l u d e d a s m a r k e r s i n e a c h f a c e t . T o c o u n t e r b a l a n c e o r d e r e f f e c t s , a L a t i n s q u a r e d e s i g n w a s u s e d i n s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e f i n a l s c a l e - w a s s e n t t o 268 v e r i f i e d t r a i n e r s ( w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d i n v o l v e m e n t o n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) a n d 25 n o n - v e r i f i e d t r a i n e r s ( w h o h a d n o t r e c e i v e d t h e i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e b e f o r e r e c e i v i n g t h e f i n a l " s c a l e ) . T h e u s e a b l e r e t u r n r a t e f o r t h e g r o u p s w a s 69.5$ a n d 4-8$ r e s p e c t i v e l y ; t h e o v e r a l l u s e a b l e r e t u r n r a t e w a s 66$. 156 Summary of Results The Demographic Information Sheet que s t i o n n a i r e provided a basis f o r summarizing the biodemographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i d e n t i f i e d p o p u l a t i o n (N=307)• According to responses to questionnaire v a r i a b l e s , Canadian a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s appear to be a well-educated group employed i n p r o f e s s i o n a l c a p a c i -t i e s . Those i n v o l v e d i n the f i e l d are predominantly female, .-; working mostly w i t h women i n a group s e t t i n g . ..A s u b s t a n t i a l number of t r a i n e r s are al s o i n v o l v e d i n research. Most t r a i n -ers learned to teach a s s e r t i v e n e s s workshops from s e v e r a l sources i n c l u d i n g reading r e l e v a n t books, and being taught by an "AT" expert or p r o f e s s o r . Many a l s o learned through i n -volvement i n asse r t i v e n e s s workshops, e i t h e r as a. co-leader or as a p a r t i c i p a n t . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s suggest that the 'population' of t r a i n e r s i s knowledgeable i n the f i e l d of a s s e r t i o n and i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n and aggression. From reading books on the s u b j e c t , t r a i n e r s are aware of conceptual and d e f i n i -t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s ; from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n research, they are f a m i l i a r i z e d w i t h b e h a v i o r a l components and experimental r e -search. The m a j o r i t y of t r a i n e r s a l s o i n d i c a t e d c l i e n t s have d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n from aggression; thus, there appears to be an awareness of t h i s as an issue i n teach-i n g a s s e r t i o n . Analyses of the returned s c a l e s (N=196) i n d i c a t e d t h a t , w i t h few exceptions, the items accomplished t h e i r intended 157 purpose of component i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Ninety-eight of the 1C4 items d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n the intended d i r e c t i o n . Of the 98 p r o p e r l y f u n c t i o n i n g items, 93 were s i g n i f i c a n t at the =.05 p l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n H o t e l l i n g T analyses. Examination of those items not f u n c t i o n i n g as expected shows th a t f o u r marker items intended to be unassertive were rat e d as aggressive: 'speaker makes derogatory statements • about s e l f , ' 'minimal eye contact w i t h another person,' 'ner-vous mannerisms* and 'anxious.' This suggests that these were perceived by r a t e r s as passive/aggressive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s the i n f l u e n c e of a 'response s e t ' when r a t i n g on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression. Only two items w i t h i n the s c a l e reversed d i r e c t i o n s : 'using the word " I " very f r e q u e n t l y ' was intended to represent aggression, but had a higher mean on a s s e r t i o n ; s i m i l a r l y 'spontaneous exclamations of i r r i t a t i o n and d i s g u s t at another person' was hypothesized to represent a s s e r t i o n , but had a higher mean on aggression. These items may have been perceived as ambiguous items, or as items r e q u i r i n g a context. A n a l y s i s of variance f o r each of the four f a c e t s i n d i c a t e d that the greatest p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a b i l i t y w i t h i n each f a c e t was a t t r i b u t a b l e to d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t i n g s of items when r a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t contexts, i . e . on A s s e r t i o n or on Aggression. The order i n which an i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e d a s c a l e f a c e t or r a t i n g context accounted f o r a n e g l i g i b l e p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i -a b i l i t y i n the dependent v a r i a b l e . 158 To o b t a i n meaningful i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y estimates, i t was necessary to f i r s t d e fine 'subscales' i n each f a c e t , and to provide appropriate r e f e r e n t s i n terms of r a t i n g context. A l l f o u r a s s e r t i o n 'subscales,' and a l l f o u r aggression 'subscales' had good i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l -i t y estimates, even though the number of items i n each sub-s c a l e was s m a l l . The high r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n d i c a t e d that items were r a t e d f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t l y across f a c e t s . Of the 48 item-subscale c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the a s s e r t i o n ' t o t a l s c a l e , ' only f i v e were l e s s than .25. Only one of the 44 item-subscale c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the aggression ' t o t a l s c a l e * was l e s s than .25. No negative c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained. The m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g analyses showed th a t a l i n e a r s c a l i n g model f i t the data extremely w e l l , and that components of a s s e r t i o n and aggression can be meaningfully represented using t h i s technique. Conclusions The' conclusions a r i s i n g from t h i s p r o j e c t are presented i n terms of the o b j e c t i v e s of the study. The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study was to i d e n t i f y the v e r b a l , b e h a v i o r a l and p e r s o n a l i t y components of a s s e r t i o n and aggression. Using the s c a l e which was constructed, a consensus among a sample of Canadian a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s r e s u l t e d i n d e s c r i p t i o n s of these components. 159 Ninety-eight of 10 4 items functioned as expected. Ninety-three of the 98 items which functioned p r o p e r l y were also s i g n i f i c a n t at the o< = .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The extremely good d i s c r i m i n a t i o n seen and the consistency i n r a t i n g s i n -d i c a t e s c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between components comprising a s s e r t i o n and those comprising aggression. The second o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study was to provide evidence of construct v a l i d i t y f o r a s s e r t i o n and aggression. V a l i d i t y evidence f o r the s c a l e and the constructs was f u r n i s h e d from s e v e r a l sources. F i r s t , items w i t h i n the s c a l e were derived from a review of the t h e o r e t i c a l and experimental l i t e r a t u r e on a s s e r t i o n and aggression. This provided necessary content v a l i d i t y . Second, a group of AT "experts" judged each item i n the s c a l e as to i t s degree of construct r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Other evidence of construct v a l i d i t y was demonstrated as a r e s u l t of s c a l e a n a l y s i s . Strong evidence of c o n s t r u c t v a l i d -i t y was shown by the f a c t t h a t 98 of 104 items f u n c t i o n e d i n t h e i r intended d i r e c t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , at the .05 s i g n i f i -cance l e v e l , 93 of the 98 items which functioned as expected were s i g n i f i c a n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the high i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t i e s and the item-subtest c o r r e l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d the items w i t h i n defined 'subscales* could be conceived of as homogeneous. L a s t l y , the r e s u l t s of m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g provided another source of strong construct v a l i d i t y , confirm-in g that items which meaningfully d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a s s e r t i o n from 2 aggression i n the H o t e l l i n g s T a n a l y s i s , could a l s o be r e p r e -sented s p a t i a l l y . 160 The t h i r d o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study was to c o n t r i b u t e i n -formation as to the nature of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the con-2 s t r u c t s , a s s e r t i o n and aggression. The H o t e l l i n g s T a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s perceived the components comprising a s s e r t i o n very d i f f e r e n t l y from those c o n s t i t u t i n g aggression. That the items r e p r e s e n t i n g each con-s t r u c t tended to " c l u s t e r " i n meaningful groups i n each of the f o u r f a c e t s , leads to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the constructs are perceived by a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s as being s u b s t a n t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from each other. The r e s u l t s obtained suggest t h a t both constructs are seen as encompassing a v a r i e t y of v e r b a l and b e h a v i o r a l components as w e l l as a s s o c i a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . However, the con-s t r u c t s are not e n t i r e l y independent, as evidenced by the c o r r e l a t i o n s between A s s e r t i o n and Aggression dimensions i n a l l f o u r f a c e t s . The f o u r t h o b j e c t i v e of the study concerned the v a l i d a -t i o n of the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s proposed f o r each c o n s t r u c t i n Chapter I I . Based on the consensus provided by t r a i n e r s on d e s c r i p t o r s , strong v a l i d i t y evidence has been demonstrated. Both a s s e r t i o n and aggression were perceived by t r a i n e r s as encompassing a wide v a r i e t y of v e r b a l behaviors, b e h a v i o r a l components and p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . The f i f t h o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study concerned the develop-ment of a s e l f - r e p o r t s c a l e based on those components which 161 were shown e m p i r i c a l l y to d i s t i n g u i s h the c o n s t r u c t s . The r e -s u l t s of t h i s study have i s o l a t e d many of the components of a s s e r t i o n and aggression. C o n s t r u c t i o n of a s e l f - r e p o r t s c a l e i s discussed i n Recommendations f o r Future Research. L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study This research was conducted using a 'known group' tech-nique i n e s t a b l i s h i n g v a l i d i t y f o r items and c o n s t r u c t s . The sample was i d e n t i f i e d using the 'key informant' approach to l o c a t i n g and i d e n t i f y i n g i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t r a i n i n g / research. S e v e r a l safeguards were employed to make the 'population' as complete as p o s s i b l e : repeated m a i l i n g s , v e r i -f i c a t i o n of involvement, r e q u e s t i n g t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s to i d e n t i f y others known to them. Although q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n a l y s i s revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h a t group which returned t h e i r completed s c a l e , and that which d i d not, the p o s s i b i l i t y of sampling b i a s must be considered. I f sampling or d i f f e r e n t i a l b i a s was present, t h i s bias may have i n f l u e n c e d the r e s u l t s to an unknown- extent. Thus, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study are g e n e r a l i z a b l e at most to the p o p u l a t i o n of Canadian a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s . The i n t e n t of t h i s study was not to i s o l a t e every com-ponent of a s s e r t i o n and aggression. Rather, i t has provided a f i r s t step i n construct c l a r i f i c a t i o n and i n e s t a b l i s h i n g an e m p i r i c a l b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r research. 162 The focus of t h i s research has been on an expert groups' perceptions of items and t h e i r degree of construct representa-t i o n . The ' i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s ' i s s u e was not considered of primary importance w i t h i n the scope of the present study. Two other p o s s i b l e sources of b i a s which must be con-s i d e r e d are 'response s e t ' and ' s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ' ; f a c t o r s commonly encountered when engaged i n t h i s type of research. The items w i t h i n the s c a l e were intended to be c l e a r d e s c r i p -t o r s of a s s e r t i o n and aggression components; the extent to which 'response s e t ' or ' s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ' may have i n f l u -enced the r e s u l t s cannot be estimated. Recommendations f o r Future Research The r e s u l t s of t h i s study have provided a s t a b l e and broad base f o r many f u t u r e research d i r e c t i o n s . According to a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s / r e s e a r c h e r s who are knowledgeable of the constructs from t h e o r e t i c a l , experimental and c l i n i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s , the d i f f e r e n t i a l v e r b a l , b e h a v i o r a l and person-a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the constructs of a s s e r t i o n and aggres-s i o n have been i d e n t i f i e d . On the b a s i s of responses to the s c a l e items, a s s e r t i o n and aggression are seen as encompassing a wide v a r i e t y of behaviors and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s research has shown t h a t , contrary to other f i n d i n g s ( E i s l e r , Hersen & M i l l e r , 1975; G a m b r i l l & Richey, 1975), i t i s p o s s i b l e to study a s s e r t i o n and aggression outside of a s i t u a t i o n a l context. 163 Given the consensus provided by the t r a i n e r s who p a r t i c i -pated i n t h i s study, researchers can now devote e f f o r t to r e p l i c a t i n g these components i n b e h a v i o r a l research. As i n -d i c a t e d i n Chapter I, the c r i t e r i a used i n much b e h a v i o r a l research i n terms of d e f i n i n g , i s o l a t i n g or judging presence/ absence or degree of behavior have been poorly defined. This study, then, has provided a new d i r e c t i o n f o r b e h a v i o r a l research. A valuable research c o n t r i b u t i o n would be to extend t h i s study i n order to explore the r e l a t i o n s h i p among 'unassertion,' a s s e r t i o n and aggression using m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g pro-cedures or c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s . This would f a c i l i t a t e f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the underlying r e l a t i o n s h i p s among these three commonly r e l a t e d h y p o t h e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s . As p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d , components of a s s e r t i o n and aggression are meaningful i n the absence of a s i t u a t i o n a l con-t e x t . A valuable study--which would a s s i s t i n c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the ' s i t u a t i o n a l context' i s s u e — w o u l d be to construct s c a l e items c o n s i s t i n g of one component i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s study and a s i t u a t i o n a l context ( s i m i l a r to the Verbal Statements f a c e t ) . "Experts" could then be asked to judge the degree of con s t r u c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of each item to determine whether r a t i n g s change as a f u n c t i o n of i n t r o d u c i n g a s i t u a t i o n a l context. A f o l l o w -up to t h i s would be to s y s t e m a t i c a l l y vary the s i t u a t i o n a l context or component to study how r a t i n g s change across s i t u a -t i o n a l contexts. Another f r u i t f u l avenue f o r research would be to study the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y aspects of a s s e r t i o n and aggression based on the components i s o l a t e d i n t h i s research. Osborn and H a r r i s (1975) have suggested t h a t the s o c i a l stigma of aggressive behavior i s changing. Using components from the s c a l e , v arious samples could be asked to judge d e s c r i p t o r s on the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of behaving/speaking i n c e r t a i n ways, or of possessing a s c r i b e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . Components i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s research could be used to develop a s e l f - r e p o r t s c a l e f o r c l i n i c a l use. Two measures could be obtained by summing r e s p e c t i v e subscale scores; one a s s e r t i o n score and one aggression score would be pro-vided. Although the items w i t h i n t h i s study have been shown to possess high v a l i d i t y , i t would be necessary to e s t a b l i s h v a l i d i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y and norms f o r a s e l f - r e p o r t s c a l e . BIBLIOGRAPHY (References preceeded w i t h an a s t e r i s k (*) have "been c i t e d i n t e x t ; non-asterisked references were supplementary readings.) • A l b e r t i , R.E. & Emmons, M.L. Your p e r f e c t r i g h t . C a l i f o r n i a Impact, 1975. Anderson, M.W. & D a r l i n g , R.A. A guide to the as s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g resources: S e l e c t e d annotations. Tennessee  Education,- 1977, 7(1), 37-41. A s t i n , A.W. On the f a i l u r e s of educational p o l i c y . Change, 1977, 9(9), 40-43. Bach, G.R. & Goldberg, H. Creative aggression - The a r t of  a s s e r t i v e l i v i n g . New York: Avon Books, 1974. Bakker, C.B. & Bakker-Rabdau. No t r e s s p a s s i n g ! E x p l o r a t i o n s  i n human t e r r i t o r i a l i t y . San Fr a n c i s c o : Chandler & Sharp, 1973. Bakker, C.B., Bakker-Rabdau, M.K. & B r e i t , S. The Bakkers'  Assertiveness - Aggressiveness Inventory: A Measure of  "Assertiveness" :& "Aggressiveness" (unpublished paper), Department of P s y c h i a t r y & Be h a v i o r a l Sciences, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1976. Bandura, A. P r i n c i p l e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Bandura, A. Aggression - a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g a n a l y s i s . New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1973-Baron, R.A. Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press, 1977. Bates, H.D. & Zimmerman, S.F. Toward the development of a screening s c a l e f o r 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, 1971, 28, 99-107-B e l l a c k , A.S., Hersen, M. & Turner, S.M. Role-play t e s t s f o r a s s e s s i n g s o c i a l s k i l l s : Are they v a l i d ? Behavior  Therapy, 1978, 9, 448-461. Berkowitz, L. Aggression: A s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Bloom, L.Z., Coburn, K. & Pearlman, J . The new a s s e r t i v e  woman. New York: Delacorte Press, 1975-Bodner, G.E. The r o l e of assessment i n a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . The Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1975, 5(4), 90-96. Bodner, G.E., Booraem, C.D. & Flowers, J.V. The assessment of a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g : Past, present and f u t u r e trends. I n J.M. Whitely & J.V. Flowers (Eds.) Approaches to  A s s e r t i o n T r a i n i n g . C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole, 1978. Bower, S.A. & Bower, G.H. A s s e r t i n g y o u r s e l f . A p r a c t i c a l  guide f o r p o s i t i v e change". Mass: Wesley, I976. Buros, O.K. (Ed.) The seventh mental measurements yearbook (Vol.1). New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1972. Buss, A.H. The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961. Buss, A.H. & Durkee, A. An invent o r y 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 Co n s u l t i n g Psychology, 1957, 21, 343-348. Campbell, D.T. & F i s k e , D.W. Convergent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d a t i o n by the m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d matrix. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1959, 56(2), 81-105. Christensen, A. & Arkowitz, H. P r e l i m i n a r y report on p r a c t i c e d a t i n g and feedback as treatment f o r c o l l e g e d a t i n g problems. J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 1974, 2, 92-95. Cochran, W.G. Sampling techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1963. Cohen, A.M. Community c o l l e g e s . The r h e t o r i c of access. Change, 1975, 7(1), 50-51. C o t l e r , S. A s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g : A road l e a d i n g where? Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1975, 4(5), 20-29. Dawley, H. & Wenrich, W.W. Ach i e v i n g a s s e r t i v e behavior: A guide to a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks Cole, 1976"; D i r e c t o r y of Canadian Women's Groups. Ottawa: M i n i s t e r of Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1977' D i r e c t o r y of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Co l l e g e s . Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1976. D o l l a r d , J . , Doob, L.W., M i l l e r , N.E., Mowrer, O.H. & Sears, R.R. F r u s t r a t i o n and Aggression. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1939. E i s l e r , R.M., Freder i k s e n , L.W. & Peterson, G.L. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s to the expression of a s s e r t i v e n e s s . Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9, 419-427. E i s l e r , R.M. & Hersen, M. B e h a v i o r a l techniques i n f a m i l y -o r i e n t e d c r i s i s i n t e r v e n t i o n . Archives of General  P s y c h i a t r y , 1973, 28, 111-116. E i s l e r , R.M., Hersen, M. & M i l l e r , P.M. E f f e c t s of modeling on components of a s s e r t i v e behavior. J o u r n a l of  Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1973, 4, E i s l e r , R.M., M i l l e r , P.M. & Hersen, M. Components of a s s e r t i v e behavior. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 29, 295-299. 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. 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 m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Archives  of General P s y c h i a t r y , 1974, JH), 643-649. E i s l e r , R.M., Hersen, M., M i l l e r , P.M. & Blanchard, E.F. S i t u a t i o n a l determinants of a s s e r t i v e behaviors. Journal of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43, 330-340. E l l i s , A. Reason and emotion i n psychotherapy. New York: Lyle S t u a r t , 1962. Fensterheim, H. Help without psychoanalysis. New York: S t e i n & Day, 1971. Fensterheim, H. The i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w . I n A. Lazarus (Ed.), C l i n i c a l behavior therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1972. Fensterheim, H. & Baer, J . Don't say yes when you want to  say no. New York: D e l l , 1975. Feshboch, S. The f u n c t i o n of aggression and the r e g u l a t i o n of aggressive d r i v e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1964, 71(4), 257-272. Flowers, J.V. & Booraem, C.D. A s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g : the t r a i n -i n g of t r a i n e r s . The Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1975, 5(4), 29-36. Flowers, J.V., Cooper, C.G. & Whitely, J.M. Approaches to a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1975, 5(4), 3-9. Flowers, J.V. & Goldman, R.D. A s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g f o r mental h e a l t h p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s . J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychol- ogy, 1976, 23(2), 147-150. Foy, D.W., E i s l e r , R.M. & Pinkston, S. Modeled a s s e r t i o n i n a case of explosive rages. 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-Freud, S. A general i n t r o d u c t i o n to psychoanalysis. New York: L i v e r i g h t , 1920. G a l a s s i , J.P. Review of Achievi n g a s s e r t i v e hehavior hy Dawley, H. & Wenrich, W.W. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9(1) 132-133-G a l a s s i , J.P., Delo, J.S., G a l a s s i , M.D. & B a s t i e n , S. The c o l l e g e s e l f expression s c a l e : A measure of a s s e r t i v e n e s s . Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 165-171. G a l a s s i , J.P. & G a l a s s i , M.D. V a l i d i t y of a measure of a s s e r t i v e n e s s . Journal of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, 1974, 21, 248-250,.' 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, 26, 352-3^4. G a l a s s i , J.P. & G a l a s s i , M.D. The c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n inventory: Psychometric data. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1978, 42, 492-494. G a l a s s i , J.P., Kotska, M.P. & G a l a s s i , M.D. A s s e r t i v e t r a i n -i n g : A one year follow-up. J o u r n a l of Counseling  Psychology, 1975, 22(5), 451:^52: G a l a s s i , J.P., G a l a s s i , M.D. & L i t z , 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 Counseling  Psychology, 1974, 21(5), 390-394. G a m b r i l l , E.D. & Richey, C.A. An a s s e r t i o n inventory f o r use i n assessment and research. Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 550-561. Gay, L.R. Ed u c a t i o n a l research: Competencies f o r a n a l y s i s  and a p p l i c a t i o n . Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l , 1976. Gay, M.L., Hollandsworth, J.G., J r . & G a l a s s i , J.P. An ass e r t i v e n e s s inventory f o r a d u l t s . J o u r n a l of Counseling  Psychology, 1975, 22(4), 340-343. Geen, R.G. & O'Neal, E.C. Pers p e c t i v e s on aggression. New York: Academic Press"] 1976. Gentry, W.D. & K i r w i n , P.M. 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, 30, 297-298. 169 * Gough, H.G. & H e i l b r u n , A.B., J r . The a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t manual. C a l i f o r n i a : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s Press, 1975. * Hartsook, J.E., Olch, D.R. & Dewolf, V.A. P e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of women's as s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g group p a r t i c i p a n t s . J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 23(4), 322-326. Heimberg, R.G., Montgomery, D., Madsen, C.H., J r . & Heimberg, J.S. A s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g : A review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 953-971. * Hersen, M., E i s l e r , R.M. & M i l l e r , P.M. Development of a s s e r t i v e responses: C l i n i c a l measurement and research c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Behavior Research and Therapy, 1973, 11, 505-521. * Hersen, M., E i s l e r , R.M., M i l l e r , P.M., Johnson, M.B. & Pinkst o n , S.G. E f f e c t s of p r a c t i c e , i n s t r u c t i o n s and modeling components of a s s e r t i v e behavior. Behavior  Research and Therapy, 1973, i i , 443-451. * Hollandsworth, J.G., J r . D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n and aggression: Some b e h a v i o r a l g u i d e l i n e s . Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 347-352. Hollandsworth, J.G., J r . & Cooley, M.L. Provoking anger and g a i n i n g compliance w i t h a s s e r t i v e versus aggressive responses. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9_> 640-646. * Hollandsworth, J.G., J r . & G a l a s s i , J.P. The adul t s e l f expression s c a l e : V a l i d a t i o n by the m u l t i t r a i t - m u l t i m e t h o d procedure. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1977, 3(2) 407-415. Hollandsworth, J.R., J r . & W a l l , K.E. Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n a s s e r t i v e behavior: An e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . J o u r n a l  of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 24(3), 223-230. * Holmes, D.P. & Horan, J . J . Anger i n d u c t i o n i n 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, 1976, 23(2), 108-111. Hosford, R.E. &Moss, S.C. (Eds.) The crumbling w a l l s : Treatment and counseling of p r i s o n e r s . Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, 1975. H u l l , D.B. & H u l l , J.H. A b s t r a c t s - Rathus a s s e r t i v e n e s s schedule: Normative and f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c data. Behavior  Therapy, 1978, ±, 6?3. * I n t e r n a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r y of a s s e r t i v e behavior t r a i n i n g . C a l i f o r n i a : Impact, 1976. 170 * Jakubowski, P. F a c i l i t a t i n g the growth of women through a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1978, 4(1), 75-86. * Jakubowski, P.A. & Lacks, P.B. Assessment procedures i n a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1975, 5(4), 84-90. * Jakubowski-Spector, P. An i n t r o d u c t i o n to a s s e r t i v e t r a i n -i n g procedures f o r women. American Personnel and Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, 1973-* Kaufman, H. D e f i n i t i o n s and methodology i n the study of aggression. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1965, 64, 351-361. * Kazdin, A.E. E f f e c t s of covert modeling and model r e i n f o r c e -ment on a s s e r t i v e behavior. J o u r n a l of Abnormal P s y c h o l - ogy, 1974, 83, 240-252. * K i t a , S. UBC S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences (SPSS), (Version 7.01)'. Vancouver: B e s t - P r i n t e r Co. Ltd. , 1977. Knutson, J.F. The c o n t r o l of aggression. Chicago: A l d i n e Co., 1977. K r u s k a l , J.B. & Wish, M. Mu l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g . Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1978. * Lacks, P.B. & Connelly, J . A n a l y s i s of four s e l f - r e p o r t measures of a s s e r t i o n . I n J.M. Whitely & J.V. Flowers (Eds.) Approaches to A s s e r t i o n T r a i n i n g . C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole, 1978. * Lange, A.J. & Jakubowski, P. Responsible a s s e r t i v e behavior - c o g n i t i v e / b e h a v i o r a l procedures f o r t r a i n e r s . I l l i n o i s : Research Press, 1976. * Lange, A.J., Rimm, D.C. & Loxley, J . Cog n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g procedures. Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1975, 5(4), 37-41. Larsen, K.S. Aggression: Myths and models. Chicago: Nelson-H a l l , 1976. * Laws, R. & Serber, M. Measurement and e v a l u a t i o n of asse r -t i v e t r a i n i n g w i t h sexual offenders. I n R.E. Hosford & S. Moss (Eds.), The crumbling w a l l s : Treatment and  c o u n s e l l i n g of the y o u t h f u l offender. Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, 1975. Layne, R.G., Layne, B.H. & Schock, E.W. Group a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g f o r r e s i d e n t a s s i s t a n t s . J o u r n a l of College  Student Personnel, 1977, 18(5), 393-397-171 * Lazarus, A.A. B e h a v i o r a l r e h e a r s a l vs. n o n - d i r e c t i v e v s . advice i n e f f e c t i n g behavior change. Behavior Research  and Therapy, 1966, 4, 209-212. * Lazarus, A.A. Behavior therapy and beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Lazarus, A.A. (Ed.) C l i n i c a l Behavior Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1972. * Lazarus, A.A. " A s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g : A b r i e f note." Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 697-699. * Le, C. UBC BMD08V A n a l y s i s of Variance, adapted from UCLA BMD Documentation, 1978. Documentation a v a i l a b l e from UBC Computing Centre. * Le, C. & T e n i s c i , T. UBC T r i a n g u l a r Regression Package. Vancouver: B e s t - P r i n t e r Co., 1972. * 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 C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 32(1), 21-25. * Lomont, J . J . , G i l n e r , F.H., Spector, N.J. & Skinner, K.K. A s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g and group i n s i g h t t h e r a p i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, I969, 2j?, 463-470. * Lorenz, K. On aggression. New York:- HarBrace, J r , 1966. * Lowen, A. The b e t r a y a l of the body. New York: Macmillan, 1967. * Mann, R.J. & Flowers, J.V. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Rathus a s s e r t i o n s c a l e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Reports, 1978, 42, 632-634. * May, R. Power and Innocence. New York: W.W. Norton, 1972. * M c F a l l , R.M. & L i l l e s t a n d , D.B. Behavior r e h e a r s a l w i t h modeling and coaching i n 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  Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 7_6, 313-323. * M c F a l l , R.M. & Marston, A.R. An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l 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, £6, 295-305. * M c F a l l , R.M. & Marston, A.R. Be h a v i o r a l r e h e a r s a l w i t h modeling and coaching i n a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1971, ZZ» 313-323. M c F a l l , R.M. & Twentyman, C T . Four experiments on the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of r e h e a r s a l , modeling and coach-i n g 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 Abnormal Ps y c h o l - ogy, 1973, 81, 199-218. 172 * McReynolds, P. (Eds.) Advances i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment (Vol.4). San Franci s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1978. * Melnick, J . & Stocker, R.B. An experimental a n a l y s i s of the "behavioral r e h e a r s a l w i t h feedback technique i n asser-t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . Behavior Therapy, 1977» 8, 222-228. M i l l e r , P.M. & E i s l e r , R.M. A s s e r t i v e "behavior of a l c o -h o l i c s : A d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s . Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 146-149. Moyer, K.E. & Crabtree, J.M. B i b l i o g r a p h y of aggressive  behavior: A reader's guide to the research l i t e r a t u r e . New York: A.R. L i s s , 1977-* Neiger, S. & F u l l e r t o n , E. Why you had b e t t e r f i g h t your anger r a t h e r than express i t i n any form and why being angry and being p r o p e r l y a s s e r t i v e are incompatible. Unpublished manuscript, 1978. * N e i t z e l , M.T. & B e r n s t e i n , D.A. E f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y mediated demand on the b e h a v i o r a l assessment of asser-t i v e n e s 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, 1976, 44(3), 500. N e i t z e l , M.T., Martorano, R.D. & Melnick J . E f f e c t s of covert modeling w i t h and without r e p l y t r a i n i n g on the development and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e responses. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 183-192. * Nelson, L.R. Guide to Lertap use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Dunedin, New Zealand: U n i v e r s i t y of Otago Press, 1974. * Nevid, J.S. & Rathus, S.A. M u l t i v a r i a t e and normative data p e r t a i n i n g to the RAS w i t h the c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n . Behavior Therapy, 1978, 6, 675. * O'Leary, M.R. & Dengerink, H.A. Aggression as a f u n c t i o n of the i n t e n s i t y and p a t t e r n of a t t a c k . J o u r n a l of  Experimental Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1973, Z> 61-70. * Olson, D.H.L. (Ed.) T r e a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Lake M i l l s , Iowa: Graphic P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1976. * Osborn, S.M. & H a r r i s , G.G. A s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g f o r women. I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1975. Phelps, S. & A u s t i n , N. The a s s e r t i v e woman. V i r g i n a : Book C r a f t e r s , 1975. Q u i l l o n , J . , Besing, S. & Dinning, D. S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of the Rathus a s s e r t i v e n e s s schedule. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1977, 33(2), 418-422. 173 * 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, 2* 81-86. * Rathus, S. A 30-item schedule f o r assessing a s s e r t i v e behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 398-406. * Rathus, S.A. P r i n c i p l e s and p r a c t i c e s of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g : An e c l e t i c overview. Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1975, 5(4), 9-20. * Rathus, S.A. & Nevid, J.S. Concurrent v a l i d i t y of the 30-item as s e r t i v e n e s s schedule w i t h a p s y c h i a t r i c p o p u l a t i o n . Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 393-397. Rathus, S.A. A s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g : R a t i o n a l e s , procedures and c o n t r o v e r s i e s . I n J.M. Whitely & J.V. Flowers (Eds.) Approaches to a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/ Cole, 1978. * Rehm, L.P. & Marston, A.R. Reduction of s o c i a l a n x i e t y through m o d i f i c a t i o n of s e l f reinforcement: An i n s t i g a -t i o n technique. J o u r n a l of Co n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1968, 3_2, 565-574. * Rimm, D.C. Thought stopping and covert a s s e r t i o n i n the treatment of phobias. J o u r n a l of Co n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 41(3), 466-467. * Rimm, D.C, H i l l , G.A., Brown, N.N. & S t u a r t , J.F. Group a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n the treatment of i n a p p r o p r i a t e anger expression. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1974, _3_4, 791-798. * Rohlf, F.J., Kishpaugh, J . & K i r k , D. Numerical Taxonomy System of M u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c a l Programs. A v a i l a b l e from U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Center, 1978. * S a l t e r , A. Conditioned r e f l e x therapy. New York: C a p r i c o r n Books, I90T; * Serber, M. Teaching the nonverbal components of 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 Behavior Therapy and Experimental  P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, 3_, 179-183. Smith, M.J. When I say no I f e e l g u i l t y . New York: D i a l Press, 1975. S u f r i n , M. Review of Don't say yes when you want to say no by Fensterheim, H. & Baer, J . Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 290-291. 174 * The Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n D i r e c t o r y . Ottawa, 1 9 7 8 . Thorndike, R. (Ed.) E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement. Washington: American C o u n c i l on Education, 1 9 7 1 . Tuckman, B. Conducting educational research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1 9 7 2 . * Wallace, C.J., Teigen, J.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 contracts 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, 4 , 2 7 3 - 2 7 4 . * Walton, D. & Mather, M.D. The a p p l i c a t i o n of l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s to the treatment of obsessive-compulsive s t a t e s i n the acute and chronic phases of i l l n e s s . Behavior  Research and Therapy, 1 9 6 3 , 1, I 6 3 - I 7 4 . * Warren, N.J. & G i l n e r , F.H. Measurement of p o s i t i v e asser-t i v e behaviors: The b e h a v i o r a l t e s t of tenderness expres-s i o n . Behavior Therapy, 1977, 9 , 178-184. * Whitely, J.M. & Flowers, J.V. (Eds.) Approaches to asser-t i o n t r a i n i n g . C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole, 1 9 7 8 . Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimental Design (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1 9 7 2 . * Wolfe, B.M. & Baron, R.A. L a b o r a t o r y aggression r e l a t e d to aggression i n n a t u r a l i s t i c s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s : E f f e c t s of an aggressive model on the behavior of c o l l e g e s t u -dent and p r i s o n e r observers. Psychdnomic Science, 1 9 7 1 , 2 4 , 1 9 3 - 1 9 4 . Wolfe, J.L. & Fodor, I.G. Modifying a s s e r t i v e behavior i n women: A comparison of three approaches. Behavior  Therapy, 1977,. 8, 5 6 7 - 5 7 4 . * 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: Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1958. * Wolpe, J . The i n s t i g a t i o n of a s s e r t i v e behavior: Trans= c r i p t s from two cases. J o u r n a l of Behavior Therapy and  Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 1973, 4 , 141-148. * Wolpe, J . & Lazarus, A. Behavior therapy techniques: A guide to the treatment of neuroses. New York: Pergamon Press, 1 9 6 6 . Wolpin, M. On a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . The Counseling Psychol- o g i s t , 1975, 5 ( 4 ) , 4 2 - 4 4 . 175 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 m o d i 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(3), 317-319. A P P E N D I X A I N I T I A L L E T T E R TO K E Y I N F O R M A N T S A P P E N D I X B F O L L O W - U P L E T T E R T O K E Y I N F O R M A N T S WHO D I D N O T R E P L Y T O T H E I N I T I A L L E T T E R A P P E N D I X C U S E A B L E R E T U R N R A T E F R O M I N I T I A L K E Y I N F O R M A N T L E T T E R B Y S A M P L E S O U R C E 181 Table" C.1. Useable Return Rate from Sample of Key Informants Selected from the Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n D i r e c t o r y Province T o t a l L e t t e r s Sent Out T o t a l Responses Returned Unopened Useable Return Rate ( $ ) a B r i t i s h Columbia 21 14 1 70 A l b e r t a 11 5 45 Saskatchewan 12 7 58 Manitoba 6 2 1 40 Ontario 56 27 48 Quebec 29 15 1 54 Newfoundland 6 4 67 New Brunswick 5 6 1 75 Nova S c o t i a 9 3 1 75 P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d 2 2 100 T o t a l L e t t e r s 157 85 5 a Useable r e t u r n r a t e T o t a l Responses  T o t a l Sent Out-Returned Unopened xlOO 182 Table C.2. Useable Return Rate from Sample of Key Informants Selected, from the D i r e c t o r y of Women's Groups Province T o t a l L e t t e r s Sent Out T o t a l Responses Returned Unopened Useable Return Rate ( $ ) a B r i t i s h Columbia 27 15 65 A l b e r t a 7 3 2 60 Saskatchewan 7 3 2 60 Manitoba 6 2 100 Ontario 39 26 13 100 Quebec 17 8 6 73 Newfoundland 5 1 20 New Brunswick 5 3 50 Nova S c o t i a 6 3 60 Prince Edward I s l a n d 2 0 0 T o t a l L e t t e r s 121 66 29 a Useable r e t u r n r a t e T o t a l Responses T o t a l Sent Out - Returned Unopened xlOO 183 Table C.3 Return Rate from Sample of Key Informants at C o l l e g e s / U n i v e r s i t i e s T o t a l L e t t e r s T o t a l Return Province Sent Out Responses Rate (%) B r i t i s h Columbia 10 5 50 A l b e r t a 9 9 100 Saskatchewan 4 3 75 Manitoba 7 3 43 Ontario 34 22 65 Quebec 12 9 75 Newfoundland 3 3 100 New Brunswick 10 7 70 Nova S c o t i a 6 5 83 Prince Edward I s l a n d 2 2 100 T o t a l L e t t e r s 97 68 A P P E N D I X D V E R I F I C A T I O N L E T T E R S E N T TO A S S E R T I V E N E S S T R A I N E R S / R E S E A R C H E R S I D E N T I F I E D B Y K E Y I N F O R M A N T S A P P E N D I X E D E M O G R A P H I C I N F O R M A T I O N S H E E T S E N T T O I N D I V I D U A L S I D E N T I F I E D B Y K E Y I N F O R M A N T S A S A S S E R T I V E N E S S T R A I N E R S / R E S E A R C H E R S T O V E R I F Y T H E I R I N V O L V E M E N T INFORMATION SHEET (1) Name (2) M a i l i n g Address Province (3) Highest Degree Held (5) Major Occupation: P s y c h o l o g i s t Doctor Counsellor P r i v a t e P r a c t i c e s p e c i f y (6) Major Employment Agency: U n i v e r s i t y School Board Federal Gov't Other: s p e c i f y P o s t a l Code (4) Age Bracket: Below 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 _ 50-60 _ over 60 P s y c h i a t r i s t S o c i a l worker Professor Other: s p e c i f y College P r o v i n c i a l Gov't P r i v a t e C o u n s e l l i n g Agency (7) Gender: Male Female (8) Are you (have you been) i n v o l v e d i n teaching a s s e r t i v e n e s s Yes No I f yes, please answer questions 9-13• I f no, go to question 14. (9) How long have you been involved i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g ? l e s s than 1 year 1-3 years 4- 6 years over 6 years (10) Where d i d you l e a r n about teaching a s s e r t i v e n e s s ? by reading books a p r o f e s s o r taught me an "AT" expert taught me other: s p e c i f y (11) Approximate number of workshops conducted: l e s s than 5 5- 14 15-25 25-40 over 40 188 (12) Most of my involvement as a t r a i n e r has been w i t h : female male (13) Most of my involvement as a t r a i n e r has been with : groups i n d i v i d u a l equal p r o p o r t i o n (groups & i n d i v i d u a l s ) (14) I n your experience, have you found that c l i e n t s have d i f f i -c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n from aggression? Yes No I f yes, what proportion? 0 - 20$ 60-80$ 20-40$ 80-100$ 40-60$ (15) Are you (have you been) i n v o l v e d i n research on a s s e r t i o n ? Yes No (16) How long have you been i n v o l v e d i n research on a s s e r t i o n ? l e s s than 1 year 4 - 6 years 1 - 3 years over 6 years (17) What type? (18) Book or j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s : As you know, we are t r y i n g to b u i l d a Canadian p o p u l a t i o n of asser-tiveness t r a i n e r s and/or researchers. To help us, please i n c l u d e the names and addresses of i n d i v i d u a l s you know to be (or have been) inv o l v e d i n as s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g and/or research. (For those who r e p l i e d to the f i r s t l e t t e r , i n c l u d e any names and addresses you may have f o r g o t t e n ) . Thank you very much f o r your co-operation. To f a c i l i t a t e data c o l l e c t i o n , please place t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n sheet i n the stamped s e l f r e t u r n envelope and m a i l today! A P P E N D I X F F O L L O W - U P L E T T E R TO I N D I V I D U A L S WHO D I D N O T C O M P L E T E T H E D E M O G R A P H I C I N F O R M A T I O N S H E E T A P P E N D I X G - - P I L O T S C A L E - -P R E T E S T E D O N E L E V E N L O C A L A S S E R T I V E N E S S T R A I N E R S PILOT STUDY 192 This s c a l e represents the f i r s t d r a f t of a f i n a l s c a l e which w i l l be sent to a sample of a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n e r s across Canada as part of a nation-wide research p r o j e c t . The study i n v o l v e s c o n s u l t i n g w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s engaged i n the f i e l d to obt a i n a consensus on components of assertion.and aggression. This i s n e c e s s i t a t e d by the e x i s t i n g confusion w i t h i n the l i t e r a t u r e as to what^actual components of a s s e r t i o n and aggression are. This s c a l e represents an i n n o v a t i v e approach to d e f i n i n g and measur ing a s s e r t i o n and aggression. The s c a l e w i l l be r e v i s e d on the b a s i s of feedback from those i n v o l v e d i n t h i s p i l o t study. The f o l l o w i n g page provides i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r r a t i n g the items w i t h i n the s c a l e . As i t i s a somewhat r a t i n g procedure, please read the i n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y before beginning. As t h i s i s a p i l o t study, we would l i k e to obt a i n any suggestions, feedback, comments you may have on any aspect of t h i s s c a l e . Please f e e l f r e e to comment on your copy of the s c a l e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the l a s t page o f f e r s a format f o r response. A d d i t i o n a l l y , we would l i k e to know: (a) how long i t took you to complete, the s c a l e (b) how you f e l t about the items on the s c a l e . For t h i s purpose, please place one of the f o l l o w i n g symbols i n the margin beside each item: G- good i t e m , p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i p t i v e A-ambiguous item, meaning i s unclear To our knowledge, a p r o j e c t of t h i s magnitude has not been attempted before. When 1 completed, i t w i l l provide v a l u a b l e information to the f i e l d . Your c o n t r i b u t i o n w i l l help to ensure the p r o j e c t ' s success. Please complete the s c a l e as soon as p o s s i b l e and r e t u r n toe^Ker '» Sharon Kahn - C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology Dept. Helen Mac Isaac - c/o Education C l i n i c - F a c u l t y of Education INSTRUCTIONS FOR US INC. THE KWMIG _S_CAJ.E PLEASE READ THIS PAGE CAREFULLY BEFORE BEGINNING TO RATE ITEMS. The r a t i n g procedure i n v o l v e s making a d e c i s i o n as to how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c an item i s of a s s e r t i o n and/or aggression, and then p l a c i n g a c i r c l e around the a p p r o p r i a t e s c a l e p o i n t . EACH ITEM IS RATED TWICE-ONCE ON THE ASSERTION SCALE AND THEN AGAIN- ON THE AGGRESSION SCALE. It i s important to r a t e each item TWO TIMES- the computer w i l l r e j e c t a s i n g l e response! HOW TO USE THE SCALES: (A) I f you f e e l the item i s VERY c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a s s e r t i o n and NOT AT ALL c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of aggression, your r a t i n g would look l i k e : v\ v ftSStRTiots! \ J f j ( p (&~\ \ \ 1 (B) I f you f e e l the item i s VERY c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of aggression and NOT AT ALL c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a s s e r t i o n , your r a t i n g would be: v <RSSfcftTlc*>Q \ | J 1 I 1 j 1 (J) F i ^ H b ^ I \ i. I H S- \ -X 3 *\ S" (C) I f you f e e l the item i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of BOTH a s s e r t i o n and aggression,your response would look l i k e (depending on how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c you f e e l the item i s ): f y o c / «/ <? ^ y^ ^ s s f CP i—i—• i — i <P i — i — \ cp i — i — i i — t — - ) — i — < p (d) I f you f e e l the item i s NOT c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a s s e r t i o n OR agg r e s s i o n , your r a t i n g would be: Y y y y ftsseo-Tvofvj 0 — j j \ 1 . ( p — j j [ 1 A o 6 - R . e s s i b i \ i You w i l l n o t i c e that the items are not presented i n a s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , but rather are simply d e s c r i p t o r s of p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , b e h a v i o r a l components, v e r b a l statements and v e r b a l b e h a v i o r s . Thus, your r a t i n g should be based on HOW  CHARACTERISTIC you f e e l each item i s of a s s e r t i o n and/or a g g r e s s i o n . P a r t of our data a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s determining the p r o p o r t i o n of response to each s c a l e p o i n t ; t h e r e f o r e i t i s important that a l l items i n the s c a l e be r a t e d . VERBAL BEHAVIORS giving negative feedback verbally verbally insulting another using words which convey superiority frequently using the word "You" expressing hostility stating feelings honestly using "loaded" or "blaming" words sending "I" messages making angry demands directly asking others to change behavior which o^u find offensive . . answering for another person disagreeing actively not able to maintain control of a conversation asking for favors making direct statements asking open-ended questions verbally discounting another person speaking with disregard for others rights able to say 'no' without feeling guilty expressing agreement when praised i making verbal accusations ; asking "why?" for clarification exclamations of irritation and disgust speaking without pauses or filler words (e.g. urn, ah ) direct statement of wants speaking critically of another person 194 + i—I-ff t—t —I i i 'H 5" i—I '1 r A 0 * i * I \ I 1 i ; h—k—ii—h;—J-h—tr—f?—hr— t f. I »» U V ', I k Is 'r I, ^ »» Is—*«-I, L '3 'r I, U J r I, I », l„—\c », I, \r "tr—t-r -J—t-"V-5r I, I 1, I r 4 r H f t ; — I U |H !r — l r h 1 — — V I r — i 1 1-1 9 5 A l ? S S i O A J VERBAL BEHAVIORS (27) using the word "I" frequently (28) d i rect expression of feelings (29) standing up for r ights dishonestly (30) saying "you ' re wrong" frequently (31) accepting compliments (32) verbal derogation of another person (33) giving compliments (3M) expressing negative feelings (35) name ca l l i n g (36) ta lking about yourself (37) making commendatory statements (38) terminating conversations (39) disagreeing passively (40) riot able to say no without feel ing gu i l ty (41) asking for a reason (42) j u s t i f y i n g your opinion (43) making requests of others (44) maintaining control of conversations (45) statements intended to rec t i f y a s i tuat ion (46) saying "no" and of fer ing no reasons for refusa l when the s i tuat ion requires this (47) frequently using pauses or ' f i l l e r words' (e.g. um, ah ) (4*5) making statements of anger (49) expressing negative feel ings (50) using words which convey i n f e r i o r i t y using object ive words f l ippant speech s ty le *4 K <• i 1 1 3 1 ff • \ k *•> \H Is 1 '1 » » H '\ 1. 1 I-1 h ' i H 1 1 • *• V k •i 1 k k r 1 1 V k k 1 1 1 > 'r I I) ~i- u 1 'r | '1 «. > 1 * «J j '1 'r 1 V a > M k ,| • l a H 'r .1 I| '•>. • 1 V 1 1 k •> •r 1 Ii 'v y L-1 •> 'r 1 '1 k •» H / 1 1 1 ' •». '•v J-1 Ij "v 1 1 f •> 1 1, k k 'r | •* k 1 'i k > s 1 a. 3 1 «t —T s 1 1 i 1 3? 1 k k - 1 k 1 1 I •» 1 1 1 3 i 1 1 •a 1 k k 'r 1 1 1 •L | I r -J. 1 •» k Sr 1 1 k 1 k k < J 1 1 'a t k k t-1 a ! k k k> 1 k 1 k is i 1 1 • j . 1 S lv $" 1 1 k 1 •» k ls 1 1 1 k I •» t 1 1 k 1 '1 k k 1 1 1 k 1 1% h 'r 1 1 1 •-t-1. j '1 k 'r 1 1 k 1 k V • | 1 t. 1 k k l ' 1 | k 1 > 1 | I k | k k k I | t 1 1 1 I 1 1 I t 1 « c 1 V 1 •» 1 1 1 s s 1 > 1 3 1 1 1 5" (1) (2) (3) (A) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS d i r e c t l y f a c e s the person b e i n g spoken to a s y m e t r i c a l body p o s i t i o n a l l o w s o t h e r s to f i n i s h t a l k i n g s n e e r i n g ^ ' s t a r i n g ' eyes e x p r e s s i o n l e s s eyes r e l a x e d v o i c e s t a n d i n g e r e c t w i t h f e e t a p a r t s t i f f body posture assured composure q u i e t v o i c e s t a n d i n g 1^-3 f e e t from another person w h i l e t a l k i n g s a r c a s t i c s m i l i n g loud v o i c e evenly paced r a t e of speech speaking v o i c e puts the o t h e r person at ease abrupt g e s t u r e s e r e c t posture r e l a x e d hand motions w e l l balanced posture f i s t pounding w e l l modulated v o i c e | h o l d i n g s e l f w h i l e s p e a k i n g . prolonged eye c o n t a c t , v i ft ,v 1 1 1 . 1 u 1 'r _ l •r l » 1 '*< s • 1 ' i 'a. • - i l> 1 H V i 't 1-_1 u 1 H .1 1, la u 1 r minimal eye c o n t a c t w h i l e t a l k i n g with the o t h e r person (26) expansive g e s t u r e s " - f x U U ' r i , I w i -i 'a I 1 s 1 «f i r 1 ' l IT. ! i 's 1 '«( • • 1 U... 1. I '» 1 r J l i '» 1 i J 1 ll k r '1 •» B E H A V I O R A L C O M P O N E N T S (27) finger pointing (28) medium latency in response • (29) nervous mannerisms (30) standing less than lh feet away from another person while talking (31) large gestures above one's shoulders (32) erect stance with hands on hips (33) firm voice (34) s h r i l l voice (35) direct eye contact (36) symetrical body position (37) f l a t affect of voice (38) relaxed posture (39) overmodulation in voice (40) attentive l i s t e n i n g (41) smiling warmly (42) cold voice (43) short latency in response (44) looking down or away from the person you are talking to ( i s ) warm voice narrowed eyes (MV^ tense voice 197 li r i t t \ 1 ^ «< r 1 1 ' 1 1 'l '» 1 1 \ If > 1, l x 1 1 3 l i I 1 '« '•>. 1 1 <H I •r ,i ••> '•». 1 1 • Ir j 1 1 u 1 Ir J ll '-1 1 1 's l J ' i u 1 1 1 1 'l '•>. 1 1 !M 1 'r i It k 1 1 1<I 1 's-i V 1 1 •s 1 l< i '» 1 1 l ^  'M ! V | \ i •» 'l I r I i 1— i % •» 1 t< j f - I — I -t-—-+-^ 1 •1 ^ l4( S~ I ll 1 > t Jr i '\ * 5 << Ir ! 'l ' l 'l I S ir | '1 * '«t r H i 11 "*• H 'sr 1 , ') 'a > IJT _ J * i H r 'l '•»• V tr 4 'i 1 a ' «i 'r 1 1 > H 1 i l. i • •J r • i 1 i 1 t •>. i i 7 s i l I \ z 's «* \ 1 — r 1-198 PERSONALITY COMPONENTS (1) overpowering (2) forgiving (3) supportive (4) argumentative (5) oppositional (6) secure (7) yielding (8) self enhancing (9) self righteous (10) punitive / (11) responsible (12) spontanaiety (13) feelings of adequacy (14) offensive (15) alienates others (16) gets what s/he wants • (17) confrontive (18) caring (19) abusive (20) destructive (21) ingratiating (22) self disclosing (23) dictatorial (24) capable (25) smooth interpersonal relations (26) sarcastic (27) self confident Ore" o « . f < h C 5 f t - s — r i i i \ — h 1 1 a 3 1 S -1 i a , i ^ | s-1 1 • t " » ( \ i i 5 •1 I 1 i a i 5 1 — 1 S" { r -.» 1 I 1 1 •h 1 M I ! £ | 1 1 i i > I 1 * l i -r \ I . 1 *. i 1 y 1 1 t 1 S 1 ( 1 > a I i i 1 1 H i - H r i 1 1 > i 1 *< 5" 1 I 1 2 ' 1 f I • " 1 H 1 | r ~ i 1 a I 1 i 1 1 1 5 1 r 1 1 3 1 * c l i 1 a | 1 •> - . I - M 1 S" - ! 1 ! . _ j . •» * i i i |_ i — i — 1 l - H I f s 1 \ 1 • ( » 1 1 M i — s" 1 i i I i i • •» 1 1 1 1 r 1 — i **-i • • t • 1 1 J —1 fi" 1 I \ \ 1 l i 1 «< | 1 < 1 i 1 1 * 1 *< 1 i i i • > ( 1 1 s 1 I i i i 1 | | 1 i i I 3 1 1 $-i t t a 1 t 1 H _ T 1 -4-+ r—1 +" I J h I r — f -- i — i Tri- l - i — i — t ~i Mri—f-* -t-i i-t—i—t-i •t—-4 199 PERSONALITY COMPONENTS (28) s e l f respecting (29) imposing (3°) helpless (31) se l f f u l f i l l i n g (32) open-minded (32) intimate (33) tactless (34) blaming (35) • vigorous / (36) integrated (37) strained interpersonal relations (38) determined (39) self centered (40) generates g u i l t feelings in others (41) submissive (42) appreciative (43) authentic (44) b e l i t t l i n g (45) dishonest (46) creative (47) truthful (48) hostile (49) encroaching (50) anxious (51) feels vulnerable (52) authoritarian (53) self r e l i a n t (54) generates g u i l t feelings in others ASStKI I'ih Ar,(,m.S.viON .1/ 3v« I l> I. \ ' r - ' r .1 r +. [ r -I r a r i u i U '« 'r - f t — t r - ^ s r IS IV 1 7 - t - f t — TT-fc "k—17— t : Ix '> '« •+i—h I '1 S" 1—1_ J -I r Ix l> ». 200 PERSONALITY COMPONENTS (55) self-conscious (56) contradicting (57) congruent (58) outgoing (59) angry (60) tolerant H — -t— ~t-H -t— 4 H 1 s i 3 I r-i x I H -I h 3 H -+-/ RATING VERBAL STATEMENTS THE FOLLOWING SECTION INVOLVES RATING VERBAL STATEMENTS. THEY ARE NOT PRESENTED WITHIN A SITUATIONAL CONTEXT NOR IS ANY DEGREE OF AFFECT OR EMOTIONALITY IMPLIED. RATHER, WE ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ACTUAL WORDS USED IN THE SENTENCE OR THE CONTEXT OF MEANING WITHIN THE SENTENCE. / 202 ASSERTION AGGRESSION I VERBAL STATEMENTS (1) "When I get angry, I tell the other person about his/her behavior." (2) "Just because I'm smarter than you, doesn't mean you can't ask me a question." (3) "I understand how you feel, but I don't feel like that." (4) "I was going to go away this weekend, but I guess I can look after your.kids." (5) "I think you don't know what's good for you." (6) "I see your point, but there are other solutions to/ this problem." (7) "When I get angry, I tell the other person what I think of him/her." (8) "Well, I guess that's fine. I won't be able to come to many meetings, but it fits everyone else's schedule." (9) "Excuse me; I have to be somewhere is 15 minutes.' (10) "You really make me sick. You're the problem-you should see a psychiatrist." (11) "I really like your shoes. Where did you get them?" (12) "I get very angry when you leave your clothes a l l over the place." (13) "I want another steak right now. I ordered it rare and it's well done." (14) "I guess I'm just stupid. I can't figure out how to do this puzzle." (15) "I don't really know enough to comment on that right now." (16) "You're never around when I need you. All you think about is yourself." ~ f — » — i — i H h H h -l H X- 3 H h H ' •A | -1 ' 1 H 1 —t S H r-H 1 h H 1 h 1 1 f H 1 I V-I " h - i — [ i 1 — t -—t sr -\ 1 -\ 1 H f -I 1 1 * *< r I 1 1 1 1 1 H H 1 I 1 1 1-I 1 \ H H 1 I J- 3 <t S i h-H 1 \ 1- 3 «c S 203 " -c * *u VERBAL STATEMENTS V j jjf ^ 'I h /V >.V // & (17) "If you go back to work, I ' l l leave you for good." I 1 1 1 1 I I I (18) "I don't really care to go out this evening.I'm j | j j | | I I I 1 too tired. W e l l . . . I can watch you eat, I guess. I i M S" i 1 3 <i 5 Alright, I ' l l go " (19) "I don't understand why you would say that. I | ( 1 \ f | 1 i 1 ^ feel that I have been doing my share of the 1 1 . 3 H \ 1 M & work. Could you explain how you feel?" (20) "If you think I'm going to give up this promotion j j j | | { | | | I to make you happy, you're crazy." ( ^ ^ ^ s I X S *i S / 204 COMMENTS ON SCALE (1) Items: (2) Scale P o i n t s : (3) A d d i t i o n s : (4) D e l e t i o n s : (5) Organization of Scale: (6) Other comments: ( • i«vs V«v c H oo$ y ^ \ D»D Moo mftRK G /'(JOC-J T u ^ ^ ; T O O * T1HE/'TO COMPLETE THE SCALE: 205 A P P E N D I X H M E A N S A N D S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N S F O R P I L O T S C A L E I T E M S F O R A S S E R T I V E N E S S T R A I N E R S P A R T I C I P A T I N G I N T H E P R E - T E S T FACET ONE - VERBAL BEHAVIOR Means and Standard Deviations f o r Ratings on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression: Verbal Behavior A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Standard Standard Item Mean Mean Dev i a t i o n D e v i a t i o n (1) g i v i n g negative feedback 4.07 4.13 1.28 1.25 (2) v e r b a l l y i n s u l t i n g another 1.00 5.00 -• 0-; 0:. (3) using words which convey s u p e r i o r i t y 1.20 4.53 .41. .74 (4) f r e q u e n t l y using the word 'You' 1.60 4.47 .91 • .64 (5) expressing h o s t i l i t y 1.67 4.80 .98 .56 (6) s t a t i n g f e e l i n g s honestly 4.80 2.47 .56 .92 (7) using 'loaded' or 'blaming' words 1.07 5.00 .26 0' (8) sending ' I ' messages 4.73 2.40 1.03 1.12 (9) making angry demand 1.47 4.80 1.13 .56 (10) d i r e c t l y asking others to change behavior which you f i n d o f f e n s i v e 4.00 2.67 1.78 1.40 (11) answering f o r another person 1.20 3.80 .41 1.20 (12) d i s a g r e e i n g a c t i v e l y 4.47 3.93 .83 1.28 (13) not able to maintain c o n t r o l of a conversation 1.40 2.13 .83 1.06 (14) asking f o r f a v o r s 3-33 2.93 1.40 1.40 (15) making d i r e c t statements 5.00 2.67 0 1.30 (16) asking open-ended questions 3.33 2.26 1.68 1.22 FACET ONE - VERBAL BEHAVIOR (continued) A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Item Mean Mean S.D. S.D. (17) v e r b a l l y d i s c o u n t i n g another person 1.00 5.00 0 0 (18) speaking w i t h d i s r e g a r d f o r others r i g h t s 4.20 3.13 1.42 1.13 (19) able to say 'no' without f e e l i n g g u i l t y 4.20 3-13 1.42 1.13 (20) expressing agreement when pr a i s e d 3-93 3.13 1.43 1.19 (21) making v e r b a l accusations 1.13 4.86 .35 .35 (22) asking "why?" f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n 2.60 3.07 1.80 1.49 (23) exclamations of i r r i t a t i o n and di s g u s t 1.73 4.87 .80 • 35 (24) speaking without pauses or f i l l e r words (e.g. urn, ah) 4.07 3.27 1.33 1.34 (25) d i r e c t statement of wants 4.73 2.93 .59 1.10 (26) speaking c r i t i c a l l y of another person 1.73 4.67 .89 .49 (27) using the word ' I ' f r e q u e n t l y 4.27 2.67 .96 .82 (28) d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n a l f e e l i n g s 4.60 2.33 • 91 1.05 (29) standing up f o r r i g h t s d i s h o n e s t l y 1.00 4.47 0 .83 (30) saying "you're wrong" f r e q u e n t l y 1.00 4.87 0 .35 (3D accepting compliments 4.93 2.60 .26 .91 FACET ONE - VERBAL BEHAVIOR (continued) Item A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Mean Mean S.D. S.D. (32) v e r b a l derogation of another person 1.00 4.93 0 .26 (33) g i v i n g compliments 4.53 1.73 • 92 .80 (34) expressing negative f e e l i n g s 4.20 ^•73 1.21 .59 (35) name c a l l i n g 1.27 5.00 1.03 0 (36) t a l k i n g about y o u r s e l f 3.73 3.27 1.03 .96 (37) making commendatory statements 4.20 1.93 1.27 1.16 (38) t e r m i n a t i n g conversations 4.20 4.07 .86 .88 (39) d i s a g r e e i n g p a s s i v e l y 1.07 2.67 .26 1.80 (40) not able to say 'no' without f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1.40 2.80 1.06 1.47 (41) asking f o r a reason 4.00 3-33 1.31 1.18 (42) j u s t i f y i n g your o p i n i o n 2.33 3.27 1.35 1.39 (43) making requests of others 4.53 2.80 .64 1.21 (44) maintaining c o n t r o l of conversations 2.87 4.00 1.41 1 .20 (45) statements intended to r e c t i f y a s i t u a t i o n 3.07 2.20 1.28 1 .52 (46) saying "no" and o f f e r i n g no reasons f o r r e f u s a l when the s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h i s 2.40 4.40 1.81 1 .06 (47) f r e q u e n t l y using pauses or f i l l e r words (e.g. urn, ah) 1.60 2.20 1.06 1.27 FACET ONE - VERBAL BEHAVIOR (continued) A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Item Mean Mean S .D. S.D. (48) making statements of anger 4.13 3-73 1 .06 1.49 (49) expressing negative f e e l i n g s 4.33 4.40 1.18 .83 (50) using words which convey i n f e r i o r i t y 1.07 3.80 .26 1.70 (51) using o b j e c t i v e words 4.00 2.13 1.31 1.55 (52) f l i p p a n t speech s t y l e 1.40 3-73 1.12 1.28 r o o v o FACET TWO - BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS Means and Standard Deviations f o r Ratings on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression: B e h a v i o r a l Components A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Standard Standard Item Mean Mean Dev i a t i o n Deviat (1) d i r e c t l y faces the person being spoken to 5.00 3.80 0 1.21 (2) a s y m e t r i c a l body p o s i t i o n 1.93 3-27 1.39 1.33 (3) allows others to f i n i s h t a l k i n g 4.53 1.13 .64 • 35 (4) sneering 1 .00 4.87 0 .35 (5) ' s t a r i n g ' eyes l .13 4.60 .35 .74 (6) expressionless eyes l .13 2.47 •35 1.69 (7) r e l a x e d voice 4.73 1.27 • 59 .80 (8) standing erect w i t h f e e t apart 3-93 3.13 1.49 1.46 (9) s t i f f body posture 1.13 4.13 .35 .92 (10) assured composure 4.87 2.40 .35 1.40 (11) q u i e t v o i c e 2.33 1.73 1.54 .80 (12) standing l-§--3 f e e t from another person while t a l k i n g 3.6o 2.53 1.30 1.06 (13) s a r c a s t i c " s m i l i n g 1.20 4.26 .78 1.16 (14) loud voice 2.00 4.20 1.25 1 tkz (15) evenly paced r a t e of speech 4.53 1.87 • 74 1.13 (16) speaking voice puts the other person at ease 4.13 1.53 l .30 1.25 (17) abrupt gestures 1.60 3-67 1.40 1.68 FACET TWO - BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS (continued) Item A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Mean Mean S.D. S.D. ( 1 8 ) erect posture 4 .53 2.73 . 6 4 1.22 (19) r e l a x e d hand motions 4 .67 1.67 .72 1 .18 (20) w e l l balanced posture- 4 . 4 0 1.93 1.40 1.39 (21) f i s t pounding 1 .40 4 .13 1.12 1.55 (22) w e l l modulated voice 4 .53 1 .40 1.13 1.06 (23) 'holding s e l f w h i l e speaking 1.33 2 . 40 • 90 1 .40 (24) prolonged eye contact 2.80 3.53 1 .42 1 .46 (25) minimal eye contact while t a l k i n g w i t h the other person 1.40 3.20 .91 1 .42 (26) expansive gestures 2.27 3.60 1 .22 1 .40 (27) f i n g e r p o i n t i n g 1.53 4 .47 1 . 4 0 1.25 ( 2 8 ) medium l a t e n c y i n v o i c e 3.4o 1.47 1 .60 1.00 (29) nervous mannerisms 1.07 3.27 .26 1.16 (30) standing l e s s than lj? f e e t away from another person while t a l k i n g 1.73 3.93 . 8 8 1.28 (3D l a r g e gestures above one's shoulders 1.73 3.47 1.10 1 .46 (32) erect stance w i t h hands on hips 1.80 4 .20 1 .42 1.15 (33) f i r m v o i c e 4 .73 3.07 1.03 1.16 (34) s h r i l l v o i c e 1.33 4 .60 1 .18 1.06 (35) d i r e c t eye contact 4 .93 3.13 .26 1.36 (36) s y m e t r i c a l body p o s i t i o n 4 .07 2 .20 1.34 .94 (37) f l a t a f f e c t of voice 1.27 2.53 1.03 1.13 FACET TWO - BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS (continued) A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Item Mean Mean S .D . S ,D (38) r e l a x e d posture 4 . 4 7 1 .60 1 .25 1.18 (39) overmodulation i n vo i c e 1.53 4 . 3 3 1.41 .98 (40) a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g 4.40 1 . 0 0 1.18 0 (41) s m i l i n g warmly 3-73 1.40 1.71 . 8 3 (42) c o l d voice 1.40 4 .40 .63 .91 (43) short l a t e n c y i n response 2 . 4 0 3 - 9 3 1 .45 1 .53 (44) l o o k i n g down or away from the person you are t a l k i n g to 1 .47 2 . 6 0 1 .25 1 .35 (45) warm voice 4 . 3 3 1 .33 1.11 1.11 (46) narrowed eyes 1 .07 4 . 6 0 .26 .63 (47) tense voice 1 .07 4 . 1 3 .46 1 .36 FACET THREE - PERSONALITY COMPONENTS Means and Standard Deviations f o r Ratings on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression: P e r s o n a l i t y Components A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Standard Standard Item Mean Mean D e v i a t i o n D e v i a t i o n (1) overpowering 1.00 4.93 0 .26 (2) f o r g i v i n g 3-87 1.20 1.13 .56 (3) supportive 4.07 1 .07 1.03 .26 (4) argumentative 1.20 4.53 .56 1.13 (5) o p p o s i t i o n a l 1.80 4.40 .94 1.60 (6) secure 4.53 1.73 .74 .88 (7) y i e l d i n g 2.53 1.20 1.19 .78 (8) self-enhancing 3.60 3.20 1.45 1.57 (9) s e l f - r i g h t e o u s 1.33 4.80 • 35 .56 (10) p u n i t i v e 1.27 4.60 1.03 1 .21 (11) r e s p o n s i b l e 5.00 1.67 0 .82 (12) spontaneity 4.60 3.47 .63 1.30 (13) f e e l i n g s of adequacy 4.80 1.67 .41 .90 (14) o f f e n s i v e 1.07 4.93 .26 .26 (15) a l i e n a t e s others 1.53 5.00 .74 0 (16) gets what he/she wants 3.33 3.47 1.29 1.41 (17) c o n f r o n t i v e 3.07 4.53 1.16 .83 (18) c a r i n g 4.47 1.60 .83 1.18 FACET THREE - PERSONALITY COMPONENTS (continued) Item A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Mean Mean S.D. S.D. (19) abusive 1.00 4.87 0 .35 (20) d e s t r u c t i v e 1.13 4.87 .35 .35 (21) i n g r a t i a t i n g 1.40 1.67 1.06 • 90 (22) s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g 4.20 2.13 1.15 1.25 (23) d i c t a t o r i a l 1.00 4.80 0 .56 (24) capable 4.60 2.87 .83 .83 (25) smooth i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s 4.47 1.33 .74 .62 (26) s a r c a s t i c 1.20 4.67 .41 .72 (27) s e l f - c o n f i d e n t 4.87 2.27 .35 1.03 (28) s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g 4.87 2.07 • 35 1 .10 (29) imposing 1.53 4.80 .74 .41 (30) h e l p l e s s 1.00 1.67 0 .72 (3D s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g 4.60 2.33 .63 1.18 (32) open-minded 4.80 1.20 .41 .41 (33) i n t i m a t e 3.93 1.40 1.49 1.06 (34) t a c t l e s s 1.13 4.93 • 35 .26 (35) blaming 1.00 5.00 0 0 (36) vigorous 3.87 4.07 .83 .88 (37) i n t e g r a t e d 4.93 1.47 .26 .64 (38) s t r a i n e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s 1.27 4.93 .59 .26 (39) determined 4.20 4.07 .78 1.16 FACET THREE - PERSONALITY COMPONENTS (continued) A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Item " Mean Mean S.D. S.D. (40) s e l f - c e n t e r e d 2.27 4.80 1.44 .56 (41) generates g u i l t f e e l i n g s i n others 1.20 4.80 .56 • 78 (42) submissive 1.00 1.20 0 .56 (43) a p p r e c i a t i v e 4.53 1.27 .64 .46 (44) authentic 4.93 •1.80 .26 1.08 (45) b e l i t t l i n g 1.00 4.87 0 .35 (46) dishonest 1.13 3.40 .35 1.24 (47) c r e a t i v e 3.53 2.60 1.19 .91 (48) t r u t h f u l 4.33 2.47 1.11 1.06 (49) h o s t i l e 1.07 4.93 .26 .26 (50) encroaching 1.07 5-00 .26 0 (51) anxious 1.40 3.6o .51 .99 (52) f e e l s v u l n e r a b l e 2.40 3-53 .99 1.25 (53) a u t h o r i t a r i a n 1.00 4.93 0 .26 (54) s e l f - r e l i a n t 4.93 2.67 .26 1.18 (55) generates g u i l t f e e l i n g s i n others 1.00 4.33 • 38 1.40 (56) s e l f - c o n s c i o u s 1.73 2.67 .96 '.82 (57) c o n t r a d i c t i n g 1.13 4.13 .52 1.13 (58) congruent 4.87 1.73 .35 .80 FACET THREE - PERSONALITY COMPONENTS (continued) A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Item Mean Mean S.D. S .D (59) outgoing 4.07 3.60 .88 .91 (60) angry 1.87 4.80 • 92 .56 (61) t o l e r a n t 4.27 1.47 1.22 1.06 FACET FOUR - VERBAL STATEMENTS Means and Standard Deviations f o r Ratings on A s s e r t i o n and Aggression: Verbal Statements A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Standard Standard Item Mean Mean D e v i a t i o n D e v i a t i o n ( 1 ) "When I get angry, I t e l l the other person about h i s / h e r behavior" 3-73 3.93 1.68 1.33 ( 2 ) "Just because I'm smarter than you, doesn't mean you can't ask me a question" 1 . 0 7 4 . 2 0 .46 1 . 3 2 (3) "I understand how you f e e l , but I don't f e e l l i k e t h a t " 4.93 1 . 2 7 . 2 6 .80 (4) "I was going to go away t h i s weekend, but I guess I can look a f t e r your k i d s " 1 . 1 3 1.87 • 35 1.36 (5) "I t h i n k you don't know what's good f o r you" 1.53 4.33 1 . 1 3 1 . 1 1 (6) " I see your p o i n t , but there are other s o l u t i o n s to t h i s problem" 4.33 1.47 1 . 1 1 .74 (7) "When I get angry, I t e l l the other person what I t h i n k of him/ her" 1.73 4.53 1 . 1 6 1 . 0 6 (8) "Well, I guess that's f i n e . I won't be able to come to many meetings, but i t f i t s everyone el s e ' s schedule" 1 . 6 7 1.93 1 . 2 3 1 . 2 2 (9) "Excuse me; I have to be somewhere 4.53 1.6o 1 . 0 6 .74 i n 1 0 minutes FACET FOUR - VERBAL STATEMENTS (continued) Item A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Mean Mean S.D. S.D. (10) "You r e a l l y make me s i c k - you're 1.00 the problem - you should see a p s y c h i a t r i s t " (11) " I r e a l l y l i k e your shoes. Where 4.27 d i d you get them?" (12) " I get very angry when you leave 4.60 your c l o t h e s a l l over the p l a c e " (13) " I want another steak r i g h t now. 2.33 I ordered i t rare and i t ' s w e l l done" (14) " I guess I'm j u s t s t u p i d . I can't 1.20 f i g u r e out how to do t h i s p u z z l e " (15) " I don't r e a l l y know enough to 4.80 comment on that r i g h t now" (16) "You're never around when I need 1.13 you. A l l you think about i s y o u r s e l f " (17) " I f you go back to work, I ' l l leave 1.40 you f o r good" (18) " I don't r e a l l y care to go out t h i s 1.00 evening. I'm too t i r e d . W e ll .. I can watch you eat, I guess. A l r i g h t , I'11 go ... " (19) " I don't understand why you would 4.53 say t h a t , I f e e l t h a t I have been doing my share of the work. Could you e x p l a i n how you f e e l " 4.73 1.67 1.73 4.13 1.33 1.20 4.73 4.87 1.60 1.40 0 .88 .63 1.23 .56 .41 .52 .83 0 .83 1.03 .82 1 .03 .99 .72 .41 • 70 .35 1.18 .91 FACET FOUR - VERBAL STATEMENTS (continued) A s s e r t i o n Aggression A s s e r t i o n Aggression Item Mean Mean S.D. S.D. (20) " I f you th i n k I'm going to give 1.00 5-00 0 0 up t h i s promotion to make you happy, you're crazy" A P P E N D I X I - - F I N A L S C A L E - -S E N T T O A S S E R T I V E N E S S T R A I N E R S / R E S E A R C H E R S 221 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 4<r INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE RATING SCALE PLEASE READ THIS PAGE CAREFULLY BEFORE BEGINNING TO RATE ITEMS The r a t i n g procedure invol v e s making a d e c i s i o n as to how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c an item i s of a s s e r t i o n ( or aggression ) , and then p l a c i n g a c i r c l e around the appropriate scale p o i n t . In our data a n a l y s i s , your responses to the same item on both the ASSERTION and AGGRESSION scales w i l l be compared. Thus, i t i s important that each item on the scale be rated. HOW TO USE THE SCALES: ASSERTION not at a l l somewhat very (A) i f you think the item i s VERY CHARACTERISTIC of ASSERTION, your r a t i n g would be: (B) i f you think the item i s NOT AT ALL CHARACTERISTIC of ASSERTION , your r a t i n g would be: (C) i f you f e e l the item i s SOMEWHAT CHARACTERISTIC of ASSERTION , 1 2 (T) your r a t i n g would be: (D) i f you f e e l the item deserves a 2 or a 4 , you would c i r c l e the appropriate scale p o i n t . THE SAME PROCEDURE IS USED FOR RATING ITEMS ON THE AGGRESSION SCALE. You w i l l n o t i c e the items are not presented i n a s i t u a t i o n a l context, but are rather d e s c r i p t o r s of p e r s o n a l i t y , b e h a v i o r a l and v e r b a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Thus, your r a t i n g f o r each item should be based on HOW CHARACTERISTIC you f e e l each item i s of a s s e r t i o n or aggression. WHEN BEGINNING A NEW PAGE, PLEASE CHECK TO SEE WHICH SCALE IS BEING USED TO RATE ITEMS ( ASSERTION OR AGGRESSION ). 222 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE VERBAL BEHAVIORS FOR: ASSERTION not at a l l somewhat ve (1) speaker makes derogatory statements about s e l f . 1 2 3 4 5 (2) answering f o r another person 1 2 3 4 5 (3) making demands of others 1 2 3 4 5 (4) unable to say 'no' without f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1 2 3 4 5 (5) speaking without pauses or f i l l e r words (e.g. urn, ah) 1 2 3 4 5 (6) frequently using the word "you" 1 2 3 4 5 (7) speaking voice puts others at ease 1 2 3 4 5 (8) asking "why?" f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n 1 2 3 4 5 (9) sending " I " messages 1 2 3 4 5 (10) speaking with disregard f o r others' rights 1 2 3 4 5 (11) making objective state-ments about anger 1 2 3 4 5 (12) name c a l l i n g 1 2 3 4 5 (13) making d i r e c t statements 1 2 3 4 5 (14) responding with a clever put down when someone in s u l t s you 1 2 3 4 5 (15) expressing h o s t i l i t y 1 2 3 4 5 (16) able to say 'no' without f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1 2 3 4 5 223 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE VERBAL BEHAVIORS FOR: ASSERTION not at a l l somewhat very (17) d i r e c t l y asking others to change "behavior which you f i n d o f f e n s i v e 1 2 3 4 5 (18) using the word " I " very f r e q u e n t l y 1 2 3 4 5 (19) v e r b a l l y d i s c o u n t i n g another person 1 2 3 4 5 (20) f r e q u e n t l y using pauses or f i l l e r words (e.g. um, ah) 1 2 3 4 5 (21) s t a t i n g f e e l i n g s honestly 1 2 3 4 5 (22) using words which blame another 1 2 3 4 5 (23) speaking c r i t i c a l l y of another person when they are not present 1 2 3 4 5 (24) w e l l modulated voic e 1 2 3 4 5 (25) loud voice 1 2 3 4 5 (26) d i r e c t statement of wants 1 2 3 4 5 (27) d i r e c t expression of f e e l i n g s 1 2 3 4 5 (28) making v e r b a l accusations 1 2 3 4 5 (29) g i v i n g and accepting s i n c e r e compliments 1 2 3 4 5 (30) spontaneous exclamations of i r r i t a t i o n and di s g u s t at 1 2 3 4 5 another person 224 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS FOR: (1) abrupt gestures (2) minimal eye contact w i t h other person (3) s a r c a s t i c s m i l i n g (4) f i n g e r p o i n t i n g (5) erect stance w i t h hands on hips (6) a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g (7) standing or s i t t i n g w i t h stooped shoulders (8) f i s t pounding (9) s m i l i n g warmly (10) d i r e c t l y faces the person "being spoken to (11) standing erect w i t h f e e t apart (12) d i r e c t eye contact w i t h other person (13) allows others to f i n i s h t a l k i n g ASSERTION not at a l l somewhat 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 very 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 225 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS FOR: ASSERTION (14) prolonged eye contact (15) assured composure (16) relaxed posture (17) expansive gestures (18) nervous mannerisms (19) narrowed eyes (20) s t i f f body posture (21) relaxed hand motions (22) sneering not at a l l somewhat 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 very 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 226 O N T H I S P A G E , P L E A S E R A T E P E R S O N A L I T Y T R A I T S F O R : A S S E R T I O N (1) offensive (2) abusive (3) self-confident (4) appreciative (5) integrated (6) y i e l d i n g (7) anxious (8) f o r g i v i n g (9) secure (10) authoritative (11) spontaneous (12) destructive (13) chron i c a l l y angry (14) encroaching (15) supportive (16) self-righteous not at a l l somewhat 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 very 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 227 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE PERSONALITY TRAITS FOR: ASSERTION not at a l l somewhat very (17) t o l e r a n t (18) submissive (19) b e l i t t l i n g (20) t a c t l e s s (21) s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g (22) s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g (23) open-minded (24) argumentative (25) c a r i n g (26) f o r c e f u l (27) h e l p l e s s (28) imposing (29) i n t i m a t e (30) blaming (31) r e s p o n s i b l e (32) p u n i t i v e 3 ^ 5 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 8 VERBAL STATEMENTS THIS SECTION INVOLVES RATING VERBAL STATEMENTS. THEY ARE NOT PRESENTED WITHIN A SITUATIONAL CONTEXT, NOR IS ANY DEGREE OF AFFECT OR EMOTIONALITY IMPLIED. RATHER, WE ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ACTUAL WORDS USED IN THE SENTENCE AND THE CONTEXT OF MEANING WITHIN THE SENTENCE. ASSERTION not at a l l somewhat ( 1 ) " I don't understand why 1 you would say t h a t . I f e e l t h a t I have been doing as much work as you. Can you e x p l a i n how you f e e l ? " ( 2 ) " I th i n k you don't know 1 what's good f o r you." ( 3 ) "Excuse me; I have to go 1 now." ( 4 ) " I want another steak r i g h t 1 now. I ordered i t rare and i t ' s w e l l done." (5) " I understand how you f e e l , 1 but I don't f e e l l i k e t h a t . " (6) "You're the problem--you 1 need to see a p s y c h i a t r i s t . " ( 7 ) " I don't r e a l l y know enough 1 about t h a t to comment r i g h t now." ( 8 ) "You d i d a f a n t a s t i c job at 1 the meeting." ( 9 ) " I b e t t e r not go shopping 1 w i t h you...Well, you know how upset my f r i e n d gets when I spend my money j - . . " ( 1 0 ) "Just because I'm smarter 1 than you doesn't mean you can't ask me a question." 4 very 5 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 9 VERBAL STATEMENTS ASSERTION not at a l l somewhat very (11) " I get very angry when you leave your c l o t h e s a l l over the p l a c e . " (12) "I'm r e a l l y too t i r e d to . go out t o n i g h t . W e l l . . . I can watch you eat, I guess...Alright...1'11 go." (13) " I r e a l l y l i k e your shoes. Where d i d you get them? (14) " I f you think I'm going to give up t h i s promotion to make you happy, you're wrong." (15) " I guess I'm j u s t s t u p i d . I never seem to do anything r i g h t . " (16) " I see your p o i n t , hut there are other s o l u t i o n s to the problem." (17) "You shouldn't have c a l l e d me s t u p i d . I f anyone's s t u p i d , i t ' s you." (18) "You're never around when I need you. A l l you ever t h i n k about i s y o u r s e l f . " (19) " I would p r e f e r going to the movies toni g h t r a t h e r than to the concert." ( 2 0 ) "I want to go shopping r i g h t now. I don't care i f you're busy." 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 230 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE VERBAL BEHAVIORS FOR: AGGRESSION not at a l l somewhat very (1) d i r e c t l y asking others to change behavior which you f i n d offensive 1 2 3 4 5 (2) using the word " I " very frequently 1 2 3 4 5 (3) verbally discounting another person 1 2 3 4 5 (4) able to say 'no' without f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1 2 3 4 5 (5) making demands of others 1 2 3 4 5 (6) speaking voice puts others at ease 1 2 3 4 5 (7) well modulated voice 1 2 3 4 5 (8) speaking with disregard f o r others' rights 1 2 3 4 5 (9) frequently using pauses or f i l l e r words (e.g. urn, ah) 1 2 3 4 5 (10) answering for another person 1 2 3 4 5 (11) name c a l l i n g 1 2 3 4 5 (12) expressing h o s t i l i t y 1 2 3 4 5 (13) responding with a clever put down when someone in s u l t s you 1 2 3 4 5 (14) unalbe to say 'no' without f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1 2 3 4 5 (15) using words which blame another 1 2 3 4 5 (16) making dire c t statements 1 2 3 4 5 (17) loud voice 1 2 3 4 5 231 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE VERBAL BEHAVIORS FOR: AGGRESSION not at a l l somewhat very dire c t statement of wants 1 2 3 4 5 making objective state- 1 2 3 4 5 ments about anger di r e c t expression of 1 2 3 4 5 feelings speaking without pauses or 1 2 3 ^ 5 f i l l e r words (e.g. urn, ah) stating feelings honestly 1 2 3 4 - 5 giving and accepting sincere 1 2 3 4 5 compliments speaker makes derogatory 1 2 3 4 5 statements about s e l f making verbal accusations 1 2 3 4 5 asking "why?" f o r 1 2 3 4 5 c l a r i f i c a t i o n speaking c r i t i c a l l y of 1 2 3 4 5 another person when they are not present sending " I " messages 1 2 3 4 5 frequently using the word 1 2 3 4 5 "you" spontaneous exclamations of 1 2 3 4 5 i r r i t a t i o n and disgust at another person 232 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS FOR: AGGRESSION not a t a l l somewhat very f i s t pounding (2) allows others to f i n i s h t a l k i n g 5 (3! s a r c a s t i c s m i l i n g 4 5 ( 4 ; a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g 4 (5) e r e c t stance w i t h hands on hips 1 3 4 5 (6: s t i f f "body posture 1 4 5 (7: assured composure 4 prolonged eye c o n t a c t 4 ( 9 ) d i r e c t eye c o n t a c t w i t h other person 4 (10) minimal eye c o n t a c t w i t h other person 4 5 (11) s t a n d i n g e r e c t w i t h f e e t apart 4 (12) s t a n d i n g or s i t t i n g w i t h stooped shoulders 1 4 (13! r e l a x e d posture ( 1 4 ; expansive gestures 1 4 233 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS FOR: AGGRESSION not at a l l somewhat very (15) f i n g e r p o i n t i n g 1 2 3 ^ 5 (16) nervous mannerisms 1 2 3 ^ 5 (17) d i r e c t l y faces the person 1 2 3 ^ 5 being spoken to (18) r e l a x e d hand motions 1 2 3 ^ 5 (19) s m i l i n g warmly 1 2 3 ^ 5 (20) abrupt gestures 1 2 3 ^ 5 (21) sneering 1 2 3 ^ 5 (22) narrowed eyes 1 2 3 ^ 5 234 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE PERSONALITY TRAITS FOR: AGGRESSION not at a l l somewhat ( i : (2: o : (4: (5: (6: (7: (9: do; ( n : (12: (13: (i4; (15: (16: c a r i n g p u n i t i v e s e l f - r i g h t e o u s supportive abusive imposing d e s t r u c t i v e blaming int i m a t e f o r g i v i n g i n t e g r a t e d open-minded s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g spontaneous y i e l d i n g secure 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 very 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 235 ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE RATE PERSONALITY TRAITS FOR: AGGRESSION argumentative r e s p o n s i b l e t a c t l e s s c h r o n i c a l l y angry anxious a p p r e c i a t i v e s e l f - c o n f i d e n t b e l i t t l i n g o f f e n s i v e f o r c e f u l submissive encroaching s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g a u t h o r i t a t i v e h e l p l e s s t o l e r a n t not a t a l l somewhat v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 236 VERBAL STATEMENTS THIS SECTION INVOLVES RATING VERBAL STATEMENTS. THEY ARE NOT PRESENTED WITHIN A SITUATIONAL CONTEXT, NOR IS ANY DE-GREE OF AFFECT OR EMOTIONALITY IMPLIED. RATHER, WE ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ACTUAL WORDS USED IN THE SENTENCE AND THE CONTEXT OF MEANING WITHIN THE SENTENCE. AGGRESSION not at a l l somewhat very (1) "I want another steak r i g h t 1 2 3 4 5 now. I ordered i t rare and i t ' s w e l l done." (2) "I guess I'm j u s t s t u p i d . I I 2 3 4 5 never seem to do anything r i g h t . " (3) " I b e t t e r not go shopping 1 2 3 4 5 w i t h you...Well, you know how upset my f r i e n d gets when I spend my money..." (4) " I f you th i n k I'm going to 1 2 3 4 5 give up t h i s promotion to make you happy, you're wrong." (5) "I th i n k you don't know what's good f o r you." 3 ^ 5 (6) "Just because I'm smarter than 1 2 3 4 5 you doesn't mean you can't ask me a question." (7) "You d i d a f a n t a s t i c job at 1 2 3 4 5 the meeting." (8) " I understand how you f e e l , 1 2 3 ^ 5 but I don't f e e l l i k e t h a t . " (9) " I see your p o i n t , but there 1 2 3 4 5 are other s o l u t i o n s to the problem." (10) "You shouldn't have c a l l e d me l 2 3 4 5 s t u p i d . I f anyone i s s t u p i d , i t ' s you." 237 VERBAL STATEMENTS AGGRESSION not at a l l somewhat very (11) " I don't understand why 1 2 3 4 5 you would say t h a t . I f e e l t h a t I have been doing as much work as you. Can you e x p l a i n how you f e e l ? " (12) "Excuse me; I have to go 1 2 3 4 5 now." (13) "You're never around when I 1 2 3 4 5 need you. A l l you th i n k a-bout i s y o u r s e l f . " (14) " I r e a l l y l i k e your shoes. 1 2 3 4 5 Where d i d you get them?" (15) "I would p r e f e r going to the 1 2 3 4 5 .movies t o n i g h t r a t h e r than to the concert." (16) " I don't r e a l l y know enough 1 2 3 4 5 about that to comment r i g h t now." (17) "You're the problem--you need 1 2 3 4 5 to see a p s y c h i a t r i s t . " (18) " I want to go shopping r i g h t 1 2 3 4 5 now. I don't care i f you're busy." (19) "I'm r e a l l y too t i r e d to go 1 2 3 4 5 out t o n i g h t . W e l l . . . I can watch you eat, I guess... A l r i g h t . . . I ' l l go." (20) " I get very angry when you 1 2 3 4 5 leave your c l o t h e s a l l over the p l a c e . " A P P E N D I X J B I O D E M O G R A P H I C C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F T H E I D E N T I F I E D P O P U L A T I O N ( P r o v i d e d b y T h o s e W h o C o m p l e t e d a n d R e t u r n e d t h e D e m o g r a p h i c I n f o r m a t i o n S h e e t ) 2 3 9 BIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IDENTIFIED POPULATION The f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was provided by those who com-p l e t e d and returned the Demographic Information Sheet (Appendix E ) . Question 3 Highest Degree Held R e l a t i v e Count Frequency {%) None 13 4 . 4 B.A. or equivalent 38 1 2 . 9 M.A. or equivalent 1 4 9 5 0 . 5 Ph.D. or equivalent 7 4 2 5 . 1 No response 21 7 -1 2 9 5 * 1 0 0 Number of i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t r a i n i n g or research Question 4 Age Bracket R e l a t i v e Count Frequency Below 20 0 0 2 0 - 3 0 73 2 4.7 3 0 - 4 0 1 5 0 5 0 . 8 4 0 - 5 0 5 1 1 7 . 3 5 0 - 6 0 1 4 4.7 Over 60 1 0.3 No response 6 2.0 2 9 5 1 0 0 240 Question 5 Major Occupation R e l a t i v e Count Frequency (%) P s y c h o l o g i s t 101 32.2 Doctor 0 0 Counsellor 81 25.8 P r i v a t e P r a c t i c e 10 3.2 P s y c h i a t r i s t 4 1.3 S o c i a l Worker 32 10.2 P r o f e s s o r 25 8.0. Other: a 61 19.4 314* 100 * M u l t i p l e response question Content categories of "other"; only those categories w i t h n y 2 are included Count Other: C o n s u l t a n t / t r a i n e r 20 Nurse 7 P h y s i o t h e r a p i s t 6 Teacher 6 E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r 5 I n d u s t r i a l Consultant 2 241 Question 6 Major Employment Agency R e l a t i v e Count Frequency ($) U n i v e r s i t y 97 29-7 School Board 12 3-7 Federal Government 12 3>7 0ther: a 52 15-9 College ' 49 15.0 P r o v i n c i a l Government 66 20.2 P r i v a t e C o u n s e l l i n g Agency 39 11.9 327* 100 * M u l t i p l e response question ~ Content cat e g o r i e s of "other"; only those categories w i t h n > 2 are included Count H o s p i t a l P r i v a t e P r a c t i c e YWCA 29 14 6 242 Question 7 Sex R e l a t i v e Count Frequency (fo) Male 102 34.6 Female 193 65.4 295 100 Question 8 Are you (have you been) i n v o l v e d i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g ?  R e l a t i v e Count Frequency (fo) Yes 288 34.4 No 19 65.6 307 100 Question 9 I f yes to Question 8, how long have you been involved?  R e l a t i v e Count Frequency (fo) Less than 1 year 35 12.2 1-3 years l6o 55.6 4-6 years 81 28.1 Over 6 years 10 3-5 No response 2 0.7 288 100 Question 10 I f yes to Question 8, where d i d you l e a r n about teaching a s s e r t i v e n e s s ? By reading books A p r o f e s s o r taught me An "AT" expert taught me Other: a R e l a t i v e Count Frequency ($) 252 47.0 65 12.1 111 20.7 108 20.1 536* 100 * M u l t i p l e response question a Content categories of "other"; only those categories w i t h n > 2 are in c l u d e d Count Workshop p a r t i c i p a n t Jk Assertiveness t r a i n e r s workshop 10 Colleague 8 Co-leader of workshops 7 Courses 7 244 Question 11 I f yes to Question 8, approximate number of workshops conducted. R e l a t i v e Count Frequency Less than 5 94 32.6 5-14 97 33.7 15-25 46 16.0 25-40 26 9.0 Over 40 14 4.9 No response 11 3-8 288 100 Question 12 I f yes to Question 8, most of my involvement as a t r a i n e r has been w i t h : R e l a t i v e Count Frequency {%) Female 176 6 l . l Male 21 7.3 . Equal P r o p o r t i o n 82 28.5 No response 9 3•1 288 100 Question 13 I f yes to Question 8, most of my involvement as a t r a i n e r has been w i t h : R e l a t i v e Count Frequency ($) Groups 214 74.3 I n d i v i d u a l s 1 9 6 . 6 Equal P r o p o r t i o n 5 2 18.1 No response 3 1.0 288 100 Question 14(a) I f yes to Question 8 , have you found that c l i e n t s have d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a s s e r t i o n from aggression?  R e l a t i v e Count Frequency ($) Yes 1 9 6 6 8 . 1 No 7 8 2 7 . 1 No response 14 4 . 9 288 1 0 0 Question 14(b) I f yes to Question 14(a), what p r o p o r t i o n of c l i e n t s have d i f f i c u l t y ?  R e l a t i v e Count Frequency ($) 0-20% 3 8 1 9 . 4 2 0 - 4 0 $ 46 2 3 . 5 4 0 - 6 0 $ 5 1 2 6 . 0 6 0 - 8 0 $ 40 2 0 . 4 8 0 - 1 0 0 $ 1 5 7 . 7 No response 6 3 « 1 1 9 6 1 0 0 246 Question 15 Are you (have you been) in v o l v e d i n research on a s s e r t i o n ? R e l a t i v e Count Frequency (fo) Yes 81* 27.5 No 214 72.5 295 100 * 74/81 i n d i v i d u a l s are i n v o l v e d i n t r a i n i n g and research; 7 are i n v o l v e d i n research only. Question 16 I f yes to Question 15, how long have you heen i n v o l v e d i n research on a s s e r t i o n ? R e l a t i v e Count Frequency (fo) Less than 1 year 19 23.5 1-3 years 51 6 2 . 9 4-6 years 11 13.6 Over 6 years 0 0 81 100 Question 17 What type of research have you been i n v o l v e d i n ? As the type of research was h i g h l y d i v e r s i f i e d , a content a n a l y s i s was conducted to form the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s . Many respondents d i d not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e the s p e c i f i c type of research, and were thus not c a t e g o r i z e d . Count Research methods and outcomes 5 E v a l u a t i o n of as s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g programs 12 Psychometric 4 Uncategorized 60 81 Question 18 Book or j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s p ublished or unpublished  Count Journal A r t i c l e s 23 Books 4 Thesis 5 Teaching Manual 1 A P P E N D I X K R E S U L T S O F C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N S B E T W E E N R E S P O N D E N T S A N D N O N R E S P O N D E N T S T O S C A L E O N I N F O R M A T I O N S H E E T V A R I A B L E S 2 4 9 T a b l e K . l . R e t u r n "by H i g h e s t D e g r e e H e l d H i g h e s t D e g r e e H e l d R e t u r n e d No ' N o T o t a l D a t a D e g r e e B.A. M . A . P h D . R e s p o n s e n f 3 10 43 2 2 4 8 2 N o 3-7 1 2 . 2 52.4 26.8 4.9 Y e s f 10 25 96 50 15 5.1 12.8 49.0 25.5 7.7 196 f 13 35 139 72 19 278 T o t a l $ 4.7 12.6 50.0 25.9 r . 6 . 8 250 Table K . 2 . Return by Age A g e Returned No Data 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Over 60 Response T o t a l f 16 48 11 3 1 3 82 No % 19.5 58.5 13.4 3.7 1.2 3-7 f 53 95 36 9 0 3 196 Yes * 27.0 48 . 5 18.4 4 . 6 0.0 1.5 f 69 143 47 12 1 6 278 T o t a l % 24.8 51.4 16.9 4.3 0.4 2.2 Table K.3-Return by Major Occupation Major Occupation Returned Psy c h o l - P r i v a t e P s y c h i - S o c i a l No Data o g i s t Counsellor P r a c t i c e a t r i s t Worker Professor Other Response T o t a l No f 27 % 16.5 25 15.2 2 1 3 8 7 16 78 164 1.2 0.6 4.9 4.3 9.8 47.6 Yes f 68 % 17.3 48 12.2 7 1.8 3 24 18 0.8 6.1 4.6 45 179 392 11.5 45.7 T o t a l f 95 % 17.1 73 13.1 9 4 1.6 0.7 32 5.8 25 61 257 556 4.5 l l . o 46.2 ro Table K . 4 . Return by Major Employment Agency Major Employment Agency P r i v a t e F e d e r a l P r o v i n c i a l Counsel-Returned Uni- School Govern- Govern- l i n g No Data v e r s i t y Board ment Other College ment Agency Response T o t a l No Yes T o t a l f 2 9 4 0 18 1 3 1 2 1 1 7 7 1 6 4 % 1 7 . 7 2 . 4 0 . 0 1 1 . 0 7 . 9 7 . 3 6 . 7 4 7 . 0 f 6 3 7 1 2 3 1 3 1 5 4 24 1 7 0 3 9 2 % 1 6 . 1 1.8 3 . 1 7 . 9 7 . 9 13.8 6 . 1 4 3 . 4 f 9 2 1 1 1 2 4 9 4 4 6 6 3 5 2 4 7 5 5 6 % 1 6 . 5 2 . 0 2 . 2 8.8 7 . 9 1 1 . 9 ' 6 . 3 4 4 . 4 ro to 253 Table K.5. Return by Sex of Assertiveness T r a i n e r Sex of T r a i n e r Returned Data Male Female T o t a l No f % 31 37.8 51 62.2 82 Yes f 68 34.7 128 65-3 196 T o t a l f 99 179 278 % 35.6 64.4 Table K.6. Return by Involvement i n Assertiveness T r a i n i n g Returned Data Yes Involvement No T o t a l f 82 0 82 No % 100.0 0.0 f Yes 188 95-9 8 4.1 196 f 270 -8 278 T o t a l % 97.I 2.9 255 No Yes T o t a l Table K.7. Return by Length of Involvement i n Assertiveness T r a i n i n g Length of Involvement Returned Less than 1-3 4-6 Over 6 No Data a year years years years Response T o t a l f 8 51 23 0 0 82 % 9.8 62.2 28.0 0.0 0.0 f 25 102 53 9 7 196 % 12.8 52.0 27.0 4.6 3.6 f 33 153 76 9 7 278 % 11.9 55.0 27.3 3.2 2.5 Table K.8; Return by Source of Information on Teaching Assertiveness T o t a l Source of Information Returned By Reading A Professor An "AT" Expert No Data Books Taught Me Taught Me Other Response T o t a l f 75 22 34 31 84 246 No f 30.5 8.9 13.8 12.6 34.1 f 164 37 70 71 246 588 Yes f 27.9 6.3 11.9 12.1 41.8 239 59 104 102 330 834 28.7 7.1 12.5 12.2 39.6 257 Table K.9. Return by Number of Assertiveness Workshops Conducted. Number of Workshops Conducted Returned Less Over No Data than 5 5-14 15-25 25-50 40 Response T o t a l f 25 29 14 8 3 3 82 No % 30.5 35.4 17.1 9.8 3-7 3.7 f 62 65 28 17 10 14 196 Yes % 31.6 33.2 14.3 8.7 5.1 7-1 f 87 94 42 25 13 17 278 T o t a l 1° 31.3 33.8 15.1 9.0 4.7 6.1 T a b l e K.10. R e t u r n b y S e x o f C l i e n t e l e R e t u r n e d . D a t a S e x o f C l i e n t e l e F e m a l e M a l e E q u a l P r o p o r t i o n N o R e s p o n s e T o t a l I N o % 49 59.8 5 6.1 25 30.5 3 3-7 82 f 116 16 54 10 196 Y e s 59.2 8.2 27.6 5.1 f 165 21 79 13 278 T o t a l % 59.4 7-6 28.4 4.7 259 Table K . l l . Return by Type of Involvement Type of Involvement Returned Data Groups I n d i v i d u a l s Equal No P r o p o r t i o n Response T o t a l No f 62 75.6 7 8.5 13 0 15-9 0.0 82 Yes f 137 69.9 12 6.1 39 19.9 196 4.1 f 199 19 52 8 278 T o t a l ° % 71.6 6.8 18.7 2.9 T a b l e K . 1 2 . R e t u r n b y C l i e n t D i f f i c u l t y D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g A s s e r t i o n f r o m A g g r e s s i o n R e t u r n e d D a t a D i f f i c u l t y i n D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Y e s N o N o R e s p o n s e T o t a l f 54 23 5 82 N o 65.9 28 . 0 6.1 f 127 57 12 196 Y e s 64.8 29.1 6.1 f 1 8 1 8 0 17 278 T o t a l % 65.1 28.8 6.1 Table K.13. Return by P r o p o r t i o n of. C l i e n t e l e w i t h D i f f i c u l t y D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g A s s e r t i o n and Aggression P r o p o r t i o n of C l i e n t e l e with D i f f i c u l t y D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g A s s e r t i o n and Aggression  Returned Data 0-20$ 20-40$ 40-60$ 60-80$ 80-100$ No Response T o t a l No 10 13 19 7 4 29 82 12.2 15.9 23.2 8.5 4.9 35.4 f 26 33 26 31 9 71 196 Yes $ 13.3 16.8 13.3 15.8 4.6 36.2 f 36 46 45 38 13 100 278 T o t a l $ 12.9 16.5 16.2 13.7 4.7 36.0 262 N o T a b l e K . 1 4 . R e t u r n "by I n v o l v e m e n t i n R e s e a r c h I n v o l v e m e n t i n R e s e a r c h R e t u r n e d N o D a t a Y e s N o R e s p o n s e T o t a l 21 60 1 82 25.6 73.2 1.2 Y e s 54 132 10 196 27.6 67.3 5.1 f 75 192 l l 278 T o t a l % 27.0 69.I 4.0 263 T o t a l K.15. Return by Length of Involvement Length of Involvement Returned Less than No Data 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years Response T o t a l f 5 13 4 60 82 No % 6.1 15.9 4.9 73.2 Yes 14 7.1 31 15.8 6 3-1 145 196 74.0 T o t a l 19 6.8 44 15.8 10 3.6 205 278 73-7 APPENDIX L REPEATED MEASURES ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR EACH SCALE FACET 265 Table L . l . R e s u l t s of ANOVA f o r Verbal Behavior Source Variance Estimate P r o p o r t i o n of Variance {%) F df Facet order (F) .0017 .033 1.72 3,144 Scale order (S) .0013 .222 10.42* 1,144 Item (I) .2384 4.689 136.86* 29,4176 Rating Context (A) 0 0 .26 1,144 Person ** (P) .0914 1.800 144 FS 0 0 .74 3,144 FI .0010 0 1.14 29,4176 FA .0006 .017 1.19 3,144 SA .0107 .210 7.47* 1,144 SI .0031 .061 1.88* 29,4176 IA 3.3275 6-5.417 521.21* 29,4176 PI ** .2667 5-243 4176 PA ** .1253 2.463 144 FSI .0002 .004 1.02 87,4176 FSA .0010 .020 1.16 3,144 FIA .0117 .230 1.46* 87,4176 SIA .0048 .094 1.37 29,4176 PIA ** .9723 19.114 87,4176 FSIA .0193 • 379 1.38* 4176 T o t a l Variance 5.0866 100.00 * p< .05 ** Terms nested under FS 266 Table L.2. Results of ANOVA f o r Be h a v i o r a l Components Source Variance Estimate P r o p o r t i o n of Variance (fo) F df Facet order (F) .0006 .013 1.18 3,144 Scale order (S) .0075 .161 5.77* 1,144 Item (I) .2993 6.418 192.22* 21,3024 Rating Context (A) .0064 .137 9.93* 1,144 Person ** (P) .1194 2.560 144 FS .0025 .053 1.40 3,144 FI 0 0 .92 63,3024 FA 0 0 • 71 3,144 SA 0 0 .95 1,144 IA 3.141 67.3^ 668.66* 21,3024 PI ** .2379 5.100 3024 PA ** .1095 2.348 144 FSI .0041 .088 1.33* 63,3024 FSA .0089 .191 2.54 3,144 FIA .0057 .122 1.30 63,3024 SIA .0017 .036 1.18 21,3024 PIA ** • 7150 15.331 3024 FSIA .0022 .047 1.06 63,3024 T o t a l Variance 4.6637 100.000 * P<.05 ** Terms nested under FS 267 Table L.3. Results of ANOVA f o r P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s Source Variance Estimate P r o p o r t i o n of Variance (fo) F df Facet order (F) .0041 .077 3.69* 3,144 Scale order (S) .0007 .013 1.93 1,144 Item (I) .2327 4.393 154.50* 31,4464 Rating Context (A) .0007 .013 3.02 1,144 Person (P) .0576 1.087 .144 FS 0 0 ,73 3,144 FI .0041 .077 I.67* 93,4464 FA .0070 .132 6.27* 3.144 SA 0 0 .06 1,144 SI .0026 .049 1.85* 31,4464 IA 4.0288 76.054 935.59* 31,4464 PI ** .2305 4.351 4464 PA ** .0501 .946 144 FSI .0035 .066 1.29* 93,4464 FSA .0022 .041 1.83 3.144 FIA .0095 .179 1.55* 93,4464 SIA .0060 .113 I.69* 31,4464 PIA ** .6552 12.368 4464 FSI A .0020 .038 1.06 93,4464 T o t a l Variance 5.2973 99.99 * P<-05 ** Terms nested under FS 268 Table L.4. Results of ANOVA f o r Verbal Statements Source Variance Estimate P r o p o r t i o n Variance of F df Facet order (F) 0 0 .64 3,144 Scale order (S) .0027 .050 6.78* 1,144 Item (I) .3485 6.415 290.40* 19,2736 Rating Context (A) .0830 1.528 168.43* 1,144 Person ** (P) .0355 .653 144 FS 0 0 .52 3,144 FI .0047 .086 1.98* 57,2736 FA .0086 .158 5.34* 3,144 SA .0026 .048 3.62 1,144 SI .0018 .033 1.74* 19,2736 IA 3.9163 72.092 809.73* 19,2736 PI ** .1830 3.368 2736 PA ** .0753 1.386 144 FSI 0 0 .86 57,2736 FSA 0 0 .53 3,144 FIA .0177 .326 1.92* 57,2736 SIA .0085 .156 1.88* 19,2736 PIA ** .7361 13.550 2736 FSIA .0080 .147 1.21 57,2736 T o t a l Variance 5.4323 100.000 * p<.05 ** Terms nested under FS APPENDIX M FINAL SCALE DATA MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, CORRELATION WITH SUBSCALE AND TOTAL SCALE FOR EACH ITEM HYPOTHESIZED TO REPRESENT ASSERTION AND RATED ON ASSERTION ACROSS THE FOUR SCALE FACETS 270 T a b l e M . l . V E R B A L B E H A V I O R A S S E R T I O N / R A T E D O N A S S E R T I O N I t e m M e a n S . D . S T T T ( 5) s p e a k i n g w i t h o u t p a u s e s o r f i l l e r ( e . g . u r n , a h ) 3.684 1.274 0.373 0.388 ( 7) s p e a k i n g v o i c e p u t s o t h e r s a t e a s e 4.219 1 .012 0.415 0.674 ( 8) a s k i n g " w h y " f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n 3.730 1.200 0.150 0.218 ( 9) s e n d i n g " I " m e s s a g e s 4.474 1.005 0.417 0.567 (11) m a k i n g o b j e c t i v e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t a n g e r 3.929 1 .251 0.337 0.344 (13) m a k i n g d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t s 4.638 0.684 0.506 0.542 (16) a b l e t o s a y " n o " w i t h o u t f e e l i n g g u i l t y 4.587 0.882 0.259 0.360 (17) d i r e c t l y a s k i n g o t h e r s t o c h a n g e b e h a v i o r w h i c h y o u f i n d o f f e n s i v e 4.372 0.960 0.174 0.140 (21) s t a t i n g f e e l i n g s h o n e s t l y 4.740 0.722 0.453 0.527 (24) w e l l m o d u l a t e d v o i c e 4.245 0.988 0.618 0.725 (26) d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f w a n t s 4.638 0.684 0.392 0.332 (27) d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n o f f e e l i n g s 4.770 0.567 0.470 0.467 (29) g i v i n g a n d a c c e p t i n g s i n c e r e c o m p l i m e n t s 4.862 0.388 0.473 0.574. (30) s p o n t a n e o u s e x c l a m a t i o n s o f 1.974 1.107 0.046 0.064 i r r i t a t i o n a n d d i s g u s t a t a n o t h e r p e r s o n 271 T a b l e M.2. B E H A V I O R A L C O M P O N E N T S A S S E R T I O N / R A T E D O N A S S E R T I O N I t e m M e a n S . D . S T T T ( 6; a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g 4.628 0.828 0.708 0.666 ( 9! s m i l i n g w a r m l y 4.158 1.053 0.534 0.600 (10) d i r e c t l y f a c e s t h e p e r s o n b e i n g s p o k e n t o 4.714 O.632 0.683 0.646 ( l l ! s t a n d i n g e r e c t w i t h f e e t a p a r t 3.638 1.218 0.398 0.473 (12) d i r e c t e y e c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r p e r s o n 4.724 0.629 0.721 0.695 (13) a l l o w s o t h e r s t o f i n i s h t a l k i n g 4.474 0.880 0.641 0.651 (15: a s s u r e d c o m p o s u r e 4.709 0.566 0.687 O.663 (16! r e l a x e d p o s t u r e 4.240 0.933 0.684 O.606 (17: e x p a n s i v e g e s t u r e s 3.000 1.137 0.276 O.269 (21 r e l a x e d h a n d m o t i o n s 4.214 1.055 0.733 0.715 272 Table M.3. PERSONALITY TRAITS ASSERTION/RATED ON ASSERTION Item Mean S .D. ST TT ( 3) s e l f - c o n f i d e n t 4.821 0.434 0.352 0.462 ( 4) a p p r e c i a t i v e 4.587 0.714 0.525 0.467 ( 5) i n t e g r a t e d 4.704 0.660 0.5H 0.515 ( 6) y i e l d i n g 2.633 1.066 0.334 0.346 ( '8) f o r g i v i n g 3.684 1.092 0.465 0.470 ( 9) secure 4.684 0.642 O.602 0.586 (11) spontaneous 4.061 0.985 0.632 0.551 (15) s u p p o r t i v e 4.255 0.937 O.650 0.579 (17) t o l e r a n t 3.867 0.989 0.588 0.6o4 (21) s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g 4.367 0.722 0.427 0.479 (22) s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g 4.770 0.567 0.622 0.624 (23) open-minded 4.505 0.788 0.743 0.696 (25) c a r i n g 4.291 0.967 0.770 0.712 (29) i n t i m a t e 4.010 0.971 0.580 0.535 (3D r e s p o n s i b l e 4.673 0.727 0.645 0.590 273 T a b l e M.4. V E R B A L S T A T E M E N T S A S S E R T I O N / R A T E D O N A S S E R T I O N I t e m M e a n S . D , S T T T ( 1) " I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d w h y y o u w o u l d s a y t h a t . I f e e l t h a t I h a v e b e e n d o i n g a s m u c h w o r k a s y o u . C a n y o u e x p l a i n h o w y o u f e e l ? " ( 3) " E x c u s e m e ; I h a v e t o g o n o w . " 4.219 4.582 0.828 0.211 0.237 ( 5) " I u n d e r s t a n d h o w y o u f e e l , b u t I d o n ' t f e e l l i k e t h a t . " ( 7) " I d o n ' t r e a l l y k n o w e n o u g h ' a b o u t t h a t t o c o m m e n t r i g h t n o w . " ( 8) " Y o u d i d a f a n t a s t i c j o b a t t h e m e e t i n g . " (11) " I g e t v e r y a n g r y w h e n y o u l e a v e y o u r c l o t h e s a l l o v e r t h e p l a c e . " (13) " I r e a l l y l i k e y o u r s h o e s . W h e r e d i d y o u g e t t h e m ? " (16) " I s e e y o u r p o i n t , b u t t h e r e a r e o t h e r s o l u t i o n s t o t h e p r o b l e m . " (19) " I w o u l d p r e f e r g o i n g t o t h e m o v i e s t o n i g h t r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e c o n c e r t . " 4.638 4.531 4.592 4.464 4.148 4.520 0.927 0.415 0.360 0.742 0.490 0.368 0.719 0.458 0.518 0.728 0.545 0.414 0.856 0.242 O.I76 0.994 0.461 0.404 0.734 0.536 0.412 4.735 0.625 0.485 0.436 A P P E N D I X N F I N A L S C A L E D A T A M E A N , S T A N D A R D D E V I A T I O N , C O R R E L A T I O N W I T H S U B S C A L E A N D T O T A L S C A L E F O R E A C H I T E M H Y P O T H E S I Z E D T O R E P R E S E N T A G G R E S S I O N A N D R A T E D O N A G G R E S S I O N A C R O S S T H E F O U R S C A L E F A C E T S 275 T a b l e N . l . V E R B A L B E H A V I O R S A G G R E S S I O N / R A T E D O N A G G R E S S I O N I t e m M e a n S . D . S T T T ( 2) u s i n g t h e w o r d " I " v e r y f r e q u e n t l y 2.092 1.190 0.224 0.210 ( 3) v e r b a l l y d i s c o u n t i n g a n o t h e r p e r s o n 4.546 0 .806 0.542 0.509 ( 5) m a k i n g d e m a n d s o f o t h e r s 3.653 1.341 0 .612 0.581 ( 8) s p e a k i n g w i t h d i s r e g a r d f o r o t h e r s ' r i g h t s 4.617 0.929 0.408 0.336 (10) a n s w e r i n g f o r a n o t h e r p e r s o n 3-959 1.002 0.564 0.610 (11) n a m e c a l l i n g 4.745 0.661 0.483 0.469 (12) e x p r e s s i n g h o s t i l i t y 4.031 1 .248 0.408 0.421 (13) r e s p o n d i n g w i t h a c l e v e r p u t d o w n w h e n s o m e o n e i n s u l t s y o u 3.980 1.062 0.495 0.513 (15) u s i n g w o r d s w h i c h b l a m e a n o t h e r 4.459 0.793 0.628 0.575 (17) l o u d v o i c e 3-791 1.106 O.671 0.7H (25) m a k i n g v e r b a l a c c u s a t i o n s 4.480 0;807 0.572 0.542 (27) s p e a k i n g c r i t i c a l l y o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n w h e n t h e y a r e n o t p r e s e n t 3.969 1.057 0.575 0.618 (29) f r e q u e n t l y u s i n g t h e w o r d 3.566 1.396 0.544 0 .646 " y o u " 276 Table N . 2 . BEHAVIOR COMPONENTS AGGRESSION/RATED ON AGGRESSION Item Mean S.D. ST TT ( 1: f i s t pounding 4.408 0.964 0.347 0.322 ( 3: s a r c a s t i c s m i l i n g 4.117 O.836 0.500 0.529 ( 5) erect stance w i t h hands on hips 3.505 1.102 0.574 0.578 ( 6; s t i f f body posture 3.255 1 . 1 4 9 0.550 0.592 ( s; prolonged eye contact 3 . 2 1 9 1 . 2 8 4 0.510 0 . 5 3 8 (15! f i n g e r p o i n t i n g 4.219 0.943 0.690 O.669 (20; abrupt gestures 3.393 1.183 0.697 0.720 (21 sneering 4.413 0.916 0.569 0.597 (22: narrowed eyes 3.949 1.099 0.623 0.668 277 T a b l e N.3. P E R S O N A L I T Y T R A I T S A G G R E S S I O N / R A T E D O N A G G R E S S I O N I t e m M e a n S . D . S T T T ( 2) p u n i t i v e 4.704 0.683 0 .410 0.330 ( 3) s e l f - r i g h t e o u s 4.265 0.901 0.514 0.551 ( 5) a b u s i v e 4.796 0.648 0.405 0.266 ( 6) i m p o s i n g 4.403 0.969 0.287 0.361 ( 7) d e s t r u c t i v e 4.750 0.675 0.441 0.345 ( 8) b l a m i n g 4.663 0.686 0.576 0.527 (17) a r g u m e n t a t i v e 4.230 O.867 0.550 0.552 (19) t a c t l e s s 4.066 1.114 0.570 0.569 (20) c h r o n i c a l l y a n g r y 4.515 0.747 0.289 0.273 (24) b e l i t t l i n g 4.485 0.850 0.555 0.566 (25) o f f e n s i v e 4.653 0.779 0.548 0.528 (26) f o r c e f u l 3.816 1.247 0.429 0.533 (28) e n c r o a c h i n g 4.143 1.043 0.513 0.557 (30) a u t h o r i t a t i v e 3.577 1.261 0.351 0.440 T a b l e N.4. V E R B A L S T A T E M E N T S A G G R E S S I O N / R A T E D O N A G G R E S S I O N I t e m M e a n S . D . S T T T ( 1) " I w a n t a n o t h e r s t e a k r i g h t 3.474 1.130 O.269 0.251 n o w . I o r d e r e d i t r a r e a n d i t ' s w e l l d o n e . " ( 4) " I f y o u t h i n k I ' m g o i n g t o 3-990 0.997 0.515 0.532 g i v e u p t h i s p r o m o t i o n t o m a k e y o u h a p p y , y o u ' r e w r o n g . " ( 5) " I t h i n k y o u d o n ' t k n o w w h a t ' s 4.020 0.971 0.450 0.434 g o o d f o r y o u . " ( 6) " J u s t b e c a u s e I ' m s m a r t e r t h a n 4.061 1.011 0.494 0.333 y o u d o e s n ' t m e a n y o u c a n ' t a s k m e a q u e s t i o n . " (10) " Y o u s h o u l d n ' t h a v e c a l l e d m e 4.531 O.78I 0.501 0.345 s t u p i d . I f a n y o n e i s s t u p i d , i t ' s y o u . " (13) " Y o u ' r e n e v e r a r o u n d w h e n I 4.265 0.929 0.586 0.439 n e e d y o u . A l l y o u e v e r t h i n k a b o u t i s y o u r s e l f . " (17) " Y o u ' r e t h e p r o b l e m — y o u n e e d 4.602 0.668 0.502 0.471 t o s e e a p s y c h i a t r i s t . " ( 1 8 ) " I w a n t t o g o s h o p p i n g r i g h t 4.413 0.882 O.569 0.276 n o w . I d o n ' t c a r e i f y o u r b u s y . " A P P E N D I X 0 I T E M V A L U E S O N A S S E R T I O N A N D A G G R E S S I O N D I M E N S I O N S A C R O S S T H E F O U R S C A L E F A C E T S T a b l e 0.1. I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n I t e m D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 (12) n a m e c a l l i n g 1.229 1 . 1 4 0 -1.092 ( 1) s p e a k e r m a k e s d e r o g a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t s e l f 1.215 -.573 • 509 (10) s p e a k i n g w i t h d i s r e g a r d f o r o t h e r s r i g h t s 1.208 1.061 -1.021 (22) u s i n g w o r d s w h i c h b l a m e a n o t h e r 1.160 .962 -.935 (19) v e r b a l l y d i s c o u n t i n g a n o t h e r p e r s o n 1 . 1 4 0 1.012 - .990 ( 2) a n s w e r i n g f o r a n o t h e r p e r s o n 1.126 .692 -.628 (28) m a k i n g v e r b a l a c c u s a t i o n s 1.112 .972 - . 9 4 8 (23) s p e a k i n g c r i t i c a l l y o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n w h e n t h e y a r e n o t p r e s e n t 1.099 .697 - .634 ( 4) u n a b l e t o s a y ' n o ' w i t h o u t f e e l i n g g u i l t y 1.050 -.674 .617 (20) f r e q u e n t l y u s i n g p a u s e s o r f i l l e r w o r d s ( e . g . u r n , a h ) .85.2 -.679 .624 ( 1 4 ) r e s p o n d i n g w i t h a c l e v e r p u t d o w n w h e n s o m e o n e i n s u l t s y o u • 789 .702 - . 6 4 0 ( 6) f r e q u e n t l y u s i n g t h e w o r d " y o u " .673 .476 -.379 (30) s p o n t a n e o u s e x c l a m a t i o n s o f i r r i t a t i o n a n d d i s g u s t a t a n o t h e r p e r s o n .604 . 8 1 4 -.771 T a b l e 0 . 1 . I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n I t e m D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 (25) l o u d v o i c e .522 .605 - . 5 1 8 ( 3) m a k i n g d e m a n d s o f o t h e r s .322 .546 - . 4 3 7 (15) e x p r e s s i n g h o s t i l i t y . 185 .735 - . 6 6 6 ( 5) s p e a k i n g w i t h o u t p a u s e s o r f i l l e r w o r d s - . 5 7 1 - . 4 5 7 .406 ( 8) a s k i n g " w h y ? " f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n - . 5 9 2 - . 3 7 8 .335 (11) m a k i n g o b j e c t i v e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t a n g e r - . 7 4 3 - . 6 7 0 . 6 0 9 (18) u s i n g t h e w o r d " I " v e r y f r e q u e n t l y - . 7 5 7 - . 4 4 9 . 4 0 3 ( 7) s p e a k i n g v o i c e p u t s o t h e r s a t e a s e - . 9 2 8 - . 9 7 6 . 9 8 5 (24) w e l l m o d u l a t e d v o i c e -.942 - . 8 8 9 . 8 6 5 (17) d i r e c t l y a s k i n g o t h e r s t o c h a n g e b e h a v i o r w h i c h y o u f i n d o f f e n s i v e - 1 . 0 3 1 - . 3 1 5 .283 ( 9) s e n d i n g " I " m e s s a g e s - 1 . 1 3 4 - . 7 6 1 .704 (16) a b l e t o s a y " n o " w i t h o u t f e e l i n g g u i l t y -1.182 .552 .497 (13) m a k i n g d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t s - 1 . 2 1 7 - . 4 0 9 . 3 6 2 (26) d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f w a n t s - 1 . 2 3 0 -.348 .307 (21) s t a t i n g f e e l i n g s h o n e s t l y - 1 . 2 8 5 - . 7 6 1 .704 (27) d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n o f f e e l i n g s - 1 . 3 0 6 - . 5 9 5 .523 (29) g i v i n g a n d a c c e p t i n g s i n c e r e c o m p l i m e n t s - 1 . 3 6 8 - . 9 2 9 .928 T a b l e 0.2. I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d . A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n  I t e m D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 [22) s n e e r i n g .398 1.066 1.490 .574 3) s a r c a s t i c s m i l i n g .380 1.043 1.197 -522 2) m i n i m a l e y e c o n t a c t w i t h .371 .981 -.561 -.223 o t h e r p e r s o n [18) n e r v o u s m a n n e r i s m s .360 .956 --372 -.138 ;i9) n a r r o w e d e y e s .353 .945 1.087 .494 7) s t a n d i n g o r s i t t i n g w i t h .347 .932 -.989 -.487 s t o o p e d s h o u l d e r s 4) f i n g e r p o i n t i n g .338 .915 1.283 .537 .20) s t i f f b o d y p o s t u r e .334 .909 . 4 8 4 .297 8) f i s t p o u n d i n g .322 .892 1.482 .571 1) a b r u p t ' g e s t u r e s .220 .662 .639 -355 5) e r e c t s t a n c e w i t h h a n d s o n h i p s .135 .462 .695 -378 ;i4) p r o l o n g e d e y e c o n t a c t -.093 -.070 .477 .293 T a b l e 0.2. ( c o n t i n u e d ) I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n  I t e m D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 (17) e x p a n s i v e g e s t u r e s -.113 -.179 -.103 .019 (11) s t a n d i n g e r e c t w i t h f e e t a p a r t -.257 -.568 .067 .105 ( 9) s m i l i n g a r m l y -.333 -.900 - 1 . 1 2 8 -.574 (21) r e l a x e d h a n d m o t i o n s -•353 -.951 -1.036 -.509 (16) r e l a x e d p o s t u r e -.356 -.964 -1.036 -.509 (13) a l l o w s o t h e r s t o f i n i s h t a l k i n g -.373 -1.094 -1.079 -.539 ( 6) a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g -.402 -1.234 -1.135 -.580 (15) a s s u r e d c o m p o s u r e - . 4 1 1 -1.253 -.705 -.321 (10) d i r e c t l y f a c e s p e r s o n b e i n g s p o k e n t o - . 4 2 1 -1.271 -2.63 -.066 (12) d i r e c t e y e c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r p e r s o n -4.23 -1.277 -.496 - .200 ro co T a b l e 0.3. I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s F a c e t A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n  I " t e m D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 ( 2) a b u s i v e .777 -.838 1.072 -.881 (13) c h r o n i c a l l y a n g r y • 771 -.834 .919 -.741 (27) h e l p l e s s .771 -.834 -.572 .482 (19) b e l i t t l i n g • 771 -.834 .900 -.721 (12) d e s t r u c t i v e .751 -.807 1.053 -.851 (32) p u n i t i v e .739 -.791 1.036 -.828 (18) s u b m i s s i v e • 723 -.779 -.791 .641 (30) b l a m i n g .723 -.779 1.022 -.801 (20) t a c t l e s s .702 -.762 .674 -.573 (14) e n c r o a c h i n g .693 -.752 .719 -.594 ( 1) o f f e n s i v e .683 -.734 1.022 -.793 (16) s e l f - r i g h t e o u s .618 -.668 .788 -.651 ( 7) a n x i o u s .550 -.559 .068 -.057 (24) a r g u m e n t a t i v e .508 -.499 • 759 -.621 (28) i m p o s i n g .508 -.499 .891 -.721 ( 6) y i e l d i n g .035 -.113 -.787 .634 (10) a u t h o r i t a t i v e -.031 -.010 .407 -.352 T a b l e 0.3. ( c o n t i n u e d ) I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s F a c e t I t e m A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 2 (26) f o r c e f u l -.204 .156 .553 - .469 ( 8) f o r g i v i n g -.454 .423 -.791 .640 (17) t o l e r a n t -.530 .508 -.830 .680 (29) i n t i m a t e -.574 .575 -.801 .650 (11) s p o n t a n e o u s -.612 .622 -.57 .127 (15) s u p p o r t i v e -.686 • 733 -.856 .693 (25) c a r i n g -.689 • 739 -.812 .658 (21) s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g -.710 .774 -.648 .532 (23) o p e n m i n d e d -.765 .849 -.846 .682 ( 4) a p p r e c i a t i v e -.794 .895 -.812 .659 (3D r e s p o n s i b l e -.833 .931 -.587 .486 ( 9) s e c u r e -.837 .937 -.737 .586 ( 5) i n t e g r a t e d -.843 .949 -.754 .598 (22) s e l f - r e s p e c t i n g -.873 .985 -.595 .487 ( 3) s e l f - c o n f i d e n t -.886 1.017 -.502 .415 oo T a b l e 0 . 4 . I t e m . V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s F a c e t A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n I t e m D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 1 ( 4 9 ) " I w o u l d p r e f e r g o i n g t o t h e m o v i e s t o n i g h t r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e c o n c e r t . " 1 .226 .868 ( 5) " I u n d e r s t a n d h o w y o u f e e l , b u t I d o n ' t f e e l l i k e t h a t . " 1 . 1 8 0 .897 ( 1) " I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d w h y y o u w o u l d s a y t h a t . I f e e l t h a t I h a v e b e e n d o i n g a s m u c h w o r k a s y o u . C a n y o u e x p l a i n h o w y o u f e e l ? " 1 . 1 4 7 . 8 2 0 ( 8) " Y o u d i d a f a n t a s t i c j o b a t t h e m e e t i n g . " 1.134 .890 ( 7) " I r e a l l y d o n ' t k n o w e n o u g h t o c o m m e n t o n t h a t r i g h t n o w . " 1 .095 .910 (16) " I s e e y o u r p o i n t , b u t t h e r e a r e o t h e r s o l u t i o n s t o t h e p r o b l e m . " 1 .088 .800 (11) " I g e t v e r y a n g r y w h e n y o u l e a v e y o u r c l o t h e s a l l o v e r t h e p l a c e . " 1 . 0 4 9 .606 ( 3) " E x c u s e m e ; I h a v e t o g o n o w . " .890 . 8 4 8 (13) " I r e a l l y l i k e y o u r s h o e s . W h e r e d i d y o u g e t t h e m ? " .857 .806 ( 4) " I w a n t a n o t h e r s t e a k r i g h t n o w . I o r d e r e d i t r a r e a n d i t ' s w e l l d o n e . " - . 0 4 0 - . 7 1 4 ( 1 4 ) " I f y o u t h i n k I ' m g o i n g t o g i v e u p t h i s p r o - - . 6 2 7 - 1 . 0 7 3 m o t i o n t o m a k e y o u h a p p y . . . " T a b l e 0.4. ( c o n t i n u e d ) I t e m V a l u e s o n A s s e r t i o n a n d A g g r e s s i o n D i m e n s i o n s : V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s F a c e t A s s e r t i o n A g g r e s s i o n I t e m D i m e n s i o n 1 D i m e n s i o n 1 ( 2) " I t h i n k y o u d o n ' t k n o w w h a t ' s g o o d f o r y o u . " -.792 -1.108 (20) " I w a n t t o g o s h o p p i n g r i g h t n o w . I d o n ' t c a r e i f y o u ' r e b u s y . " -.878 -1.384 ( 9) " I b e t t e r n o t g o s h o p p i n g w i t h y o u . . . W e l l , y o u k n o w h o w u p s e t m y f r i e n d g e t s w h e n I s p e n d m y m o n e y . . . " -.977 .724 d o ) " J u s t b e c a u s e I ' m s m a r t e r t h a n y o u d o e s n ' t m e a n y o u c a n ' t a s k m e a q u e s t i o n . " -.984 -1.122 (18) " Y o u ' r e n e v e r a r o u n d w h e n I n e e d y o u . A l l y o u e v e r t h i n k a b o u t i s y o u r s e l f . " -1.003 -1.281 (17) " Y o u s h o u l d n ' t h a v e c a l l e d m e s t u p i d . I f a n y -o n e ' s s t u p i d , i t ' s y o u . " -1.010 -1.460 ( 6) " Y o u ' r e t h e p r o b l e m - - y o u n e e d t o s e e a p s y c h i a t r i s t . " -1.096 -1.516 (12) " I ' m r e a l l y t o o t i r e d t o g o o u t t o n i g h t . W e l l . . . I c a n w a t c h y o u e a t , I g u e s s . . . A l r i g h t . . . I ' l l g o . " -1.102 .800 (15) " I g u e s s I ' m j u s t s t u p i d . I n e v e r s e e m t o d o a n y t h i n g r i g h t . " -1.155 .689 00 -v3 APPENDIX P SCATTER DIAGRAMS OF ASSERTION - ASSERTION AND AGGRESSION - AGGRESSION ITEM VALUES ON DIMENSIONS ACROSS THE FOUR SCALE FACETS - 0 . 9 9 - 0 . 7 6 - 0 . 5 7 - 0 . 3 7 - 0 . 1 6 0.05 0.26 0.47 0.67 0.88 1. 14 0.93 0. 72 0. 51 0.29 0.08 O - 0 . 1 3 M 00 M Q O - 0 . 5 5 H 00 00 w PC - 0 . 7 6 o o <c I - 0 . 9 8 » •2 1.14 0.93 0.72 0.51 0.29 0.08 - 0 . 13 - 0 . 3 4 - 0 . 5 5 -0 .76 - 0 . 9 8 - 1 . 0 9 - 0 . 8 8 - 0 . 6 8 - 0 . 4 7 - 0 . 2 6 - 0 . 0 5 0.15 0.36 0.57 0.78 0.98 - AGGRESSION DIMENSION 2 Figure P . l . Scatter diagram of aggression dimension 1 and aggression dimension 2: verbal behavior facet ro co vo - 0 . 5 2 - 0 . 4 1 - 0 . 2 9 - 0 . 1 8 - 0 . 0 6 0 .05 0 .17 0 .29 0 .40 0 .52 I . 4 9 1.23 0.96 0 .70 0 .18 S O - 0 . 0 8 H W M Q 2 o M 00 00 W I - 1 . 1 3 - 0 . 6 1 - 0 . 87 2 * 1.49 1.23 0 .96 0 . 7 0 0 .44 0 .18 - 0 . 0 8 - 0 . 3 5 -0 .61 - 0 . 8 7 - I . 13 - 0 . 5 8 - 0 . 4 6 - 0 . 3 5 - 0 . 2 3 - 0 . 12 - 0 . 0 0 0.11 0 .23 0 .34 0 .46 0 .57 - A G G R E S S I O N D I M E N S I O N 2 F i g u r e P . 2 . S c a t t e r d i a g r a m o f a g g r e s s i o n d i m e n s i o n 1 a n d a g g r e s s i o n d i m e n s i o n 2: b e h a v i o r a l c o m p o n e n t s f a c e t \ o o - 1 . 1 6 - C . 9 3 - 0 . 6 9 - 0 . 4 6 - 0 . 2 2 0 .01 0 . 2 5 0 . 4 8 0 . 7 1 0 . 9 5 . • • — • 4 •- • — — • 0 . 3 9 * 0 . 3 1 0 . 2 3 co Q 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 7 - 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 1 0 - 0 . 1 8 S - 0 . 2 6 (jq - 0 - 3 4 co CO <; I - 0 . 4 2 *2 2* * • 0 . 3 9 0 . 31 0 . 2 3 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 7 - 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 10 - 0 . 1 8 - 0 . 2 6 - 0 . 3 4 - 0 . 4 2 - 1 . 2 8 - 1 . 0 4 - 0 . 8 1 - 0 . 5 7 - 0 . 3 4 - O . l l 0 . 1 3 0 . 3 6 0 . 6 0 0 . 8 3 1.07 - A S S E R T I O N D I M E N S I O N 2 F i g u r e P.3» S c a t t e r d i a g r a m o f a s s e r t i o n d i m e n s i o n 1 a n d a s s e r t i o n d i m e n s i o n 2: " b e h a v i o r a l c o m p o n e n t s f a c e t vo Hr*_ - 0 . 8 0 - 0 . 6 4 - 0 . 4 9 - 0 . 3 1 - 0 . 1 7 - 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 4 0 . 3 0 0 . 4 5 0 .61 1 .07 • » I • ••• 1 1.07 I ** 0 . 8 8 • • i j ! 0 . 8 8 I * * I • 0 . 6 9 • » j j 0 . 6 9 0 . 4 9 • • i i 0 . 4 9 0 . 3 0 • I | j 0 . 3 0 0 .11 • i * i 0 . 1 1 - 0 . C8 » i * i j - 0 . 0 8 - 0 . 2 7 • i i - 0 . 2 7 - 0 . 4 7 * I * 3 I - 0 . 4 7 - 0 . 6 6 • • m • - 0 . 6 6 - 0 . 8 5 • i j 1 » 2 I 3 • I » * • - 0 . 85 - 0 . 8 8 - 0 . 7 2 - 0 . 5 7 - 0 . 4 1 - 0 . 2 5 - 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 6 0 . 2 2 0 . 3 8 0 . 5 3 0 . 6 9 - A G G R E S S I O N D I M E N S I O N 2 F i g u r e P . 4 . S c a t t e r d i a g r a m o f a g g r e s s i o n d i m e n s i o n 1 a n d a g g r e s s i o n d i m e n s i o n 2: p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s f a c e t - 0 . 7 4 - 0 . 5 5 - 0 . 3 7 - 0 . 1 9 - 0 . 0 0 0 .18 0 . 3 7 0 . 5 5 ? ' J » ^ l ! ! . 0 . 7 7 +4 0 . 6 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 2 7 0 .11 - 0 . 06 - 0 . 2 2 O M oo 2 p q - 0 . 3 9 Q g; - 0 . 5 5 o M EH CC p q - 0 . 7 1 00 00 < 22 | - 0 . 8 8 • 0 . 7 7 0 . 6 0 0 . 4 4 0 . 2 7 n.ii - 0 . 0 6 - 0 . 2 2 - 0 . 3 9 - 0 . 5 5 - 0 . 7 1 - 0 . 8 8 -0*7* -O.Is - 0 . 4 6 - 0 . 2 8 - 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 9 0 .27 0 . 4 6 0 . 6 4 0 . 8 3 1.01 - A S S E R T I O N D I M E N S I O N 2 F i g u r e P . 5 . S c a t t e r d i a g r a m o f a s s e r t i o n d i m e n s i o n 1 a n d a s s e r t i o n d i m e n s i o n 2: p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s f a c e t to vo 294 A P P E N D I X Q S C A T T E R G R A M S U M M A R Y S T A T I S T I C S F O R E A C H S C A L E F A C E T 2 9 5 T a b l e Q . l . S c a t t e r g r a m S u m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s f o r V e r b a l B e h a v i o r F a c e t D i m e n s i o n M e a n S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n r r 2 S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f E s t i m a t e V B A l a • 0 . 0 0 0 1 . 0 1 7 1 V B G l b 0 . 0 3 6 8 . 7 ^ 0 1 VBG2 0 . 0 0 0 7 .6956 VBA1 v s VBG1 . 6 9 3 6 * . 4 8 1 0 6 . 7 4 5 6 7 VBA1 v s VBG2 - . 7 5 3 3 * . 5 6 7 4 1 . 6 8 0 8 1 V B G 1 v s V B G 2 - . 9 6 3 4 * . 9 2 8 1 3 . 2 0 1 9 3 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < . 0 0 1 3. V e r b a l B e h a v i o r A s s e r t i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 V e r b a l B e h a v i o r A g g r e s s i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 296 T a b l e Q . 2 . S c a t t e r g r a m S u m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s f o r B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s F a c e t D i m e n s i o n M e a n S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n r 2 r S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f E s t i m a t e B C A l a . 0 0 0 9 .3^39 B C A 2 : . 0 0 0 1 .9639 B C G l b - . 0 0 0 1 . 9 2 9 9 B C G 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 2 7 8 B C A 1 v s B C A 2 .9963* . 9 9 2 5 4 . 0 3 0 4 4 B C A 1 v s B C G 1 . 6 8 1 6 * .46456 . 2 5 7 9 0 B C A 1 v s B C G 2 . 6 6 8 6 * . 4 4 7 0 9 . 2 6 2 0 7 BCA2 v s B C G 1 .6956* . 4 8 3 9 0 • 7 0 9 5 8 B C A 2 v s B C G 2 . 6 8 7 6 * .47274 .71722 BCG1 v s BCG2 .9904* . 9 8 0 8 8 . 1 3 1 7 6 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < . 0 0 1 B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s A s s e r t i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 B e h a v i o r a l C o m p o n e n t s A g g r e s s i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 297 T a b l e Q.3-S c a t t e r g r a m S u m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s f o r P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s F a c e t D i m e n s i o n S t a n d a r d M e a n D e v i a t i o n r r 2 S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f E s t i m a t e P T A 1 2 0.0000 .6857 P T A 2 0.0003 .7^09 P T G l b -.0000 .7854 P T G 2 -.0009 .6365 P T A 1 v s P T A 2 -.9987* .99748 .03498 P T A 1 v s P T G 1 -.7904* .62470 .42700 P T A 1 v s P T G 2 -.7882* .62124 .42896 P T A 2 v s P T G 1 -.7847* .61572 .46689 P T A 2 v s P T G 2 .7826* .61242 .46889 P T G 1 v s P T G 2 -.9998* .99952 .01740 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t p <.001 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s A s s e r t i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 1 3 P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s A g g r e s s i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 298 T a b l e Q.4. S c a t t e r g r a m S u m m a r y S t a t i s t i c s f o r V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s F a c e t D i m e n s i o n M e a n S t a n d a r d -D e v i a t i o n r r 2 S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f E s t i m a t e VSA1 2 .0001 1.0259 V S G l b 0.0000 1.0260 VSA1 v s VSG1 .6978* .48689 •75503 * S i g n i f i c a n t a t p<.001 V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s A s s e r t i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 V e r b a l S t a t e m e n t s A g g r e s s i o n - D i m e n s i o n 1 

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094833/manifest

Comment

Related Items