Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Perceived outcomes as related to the behaviour of assertive and nonassertive individuals in role playing… Cappe, Robin Elyse 1980

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 C36.pdf [ 6.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100256.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100256-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100256-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100256-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100256-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100256-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100256-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100256-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100256.ris

Full Text

P E R C E I V E D O U T C O M E S AS R E L A T E D OF A S S E R T I V E AND IN  TO T H E  NONASSERTIVE  ROLE  PLAYING  ^-^  BEHAVIOUR  INDIVIDUALS  TASKS  by ELYSE  CAPPE  B T7T. , Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y ,  A THESIS SUBMITTED  1974  IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T  T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E M A S T E R OF  THE FACULTY  OF  ARTS  OF G R A D U A T E  STUDIES  Department of Psychology  We a c c e p t  this  thesis  to t h e r e q u i r e d  THE U N I V E R S I T Y  Robin  Elyse  conforming  standard  OF B R I T I S H  May  (c)  as  COLUMBIA  1980  Cappe  1980  OF  :-6  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r  an advanced d e g r e e a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  for extensive  study.  copying of t h i s thesis  be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n  o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my written  permission.  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  BP  75-51  1 E  ii Abstract  In  investigating  nonassertive from  behaviour, assertion  the perspective  Subjective  the cognitive  of decision  Expected  Utility  employed  The  not  to assert  assertive  high  that  was  o f why  assertion  the pot-  were thus d e l e g a t e d  assertive assertive  while freeform  Subjects  t r a d i t i o n a l or  t o one o f f o u r  - t r a d i t i o n a l SEU; low a s s e r t i v e  subjects  received  themselves  generated  each s i t u a t i o n , a l l subjects  c o n s e q u e n c e s and t h e s u b j e c t i v e  a list  in four  of  probability that  An S E U was t h e n c o m p u t e d  f o r each  individual.  According  SEU; SEU.  possible  assertion  or  situation,  were  - freeform  i f the subject  manner.  scores  - freeform  the u t i l i t y  acted  high  freeform.  t h e i r own p e r c e i v e d rated  students  conditions:  consequences would occur nonassertive  as  to t h e i r  - t r a d i t i o n a l SEU; low a s s e r t i v e  consequences of asserting  whether or  university  according  inventory.  t o o n e o f two SEU m o d e l s :  others.  consider  T h i r t y were d e s i g n a t e d  :.'  thus  and not  undergraduate  as low a s s e r t i v e  individuals  p r o b a b i l i t y when  model  individuals  examined  s p e c i f i c a l l y the states  i n some s i t u a t i o n s  Those i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l model  For  were  in the understanding  Sixty  i n the study.  and t h i r t y  Participants  low  themselves.  the Gambri11-Richey  assigned  This  underlie  c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e i r b e h a v i o u r when d e c i d i n g  participated  on  for assisting  behaviour occurs  theory,  and s u b j e c t i v e  SEU model w o u l d a s s u m e t h a t  ential  making  in risky situations.  as a t o o l  assertive  and n o n a s s e r t i o n  (SEU) model which  maximize the product of u t i l i t y making d e c i s i o n s  mechanisms which  situations consequences.  of these  each of the  i n an  assertive  f o r each  t o t h e m o d e l , an  i ii  individual  should  s e l e c t the  course of action  or n o n a s s e r t i o n ) which p r o d u c e s the situation.  In a s e c o n d  comparable  to those d e s c r i b e d  b e h a v i o u r was were s t a t e d larger  as  her  generated role  rated  low  playing  two  the  low  should  assertives.  The  situations  their  hypotheses  SEU  SEUs  predict  will  generate  will  situations;  four  the  a group w i l l  best  assertives  and  Four  individual's  role playing  model high  an  as  for  role played  questionnaire  assertives  assertion  value  "blind" observers.  in the  behaviour; than  on  high  freeform  SEU  participants  assertives;  behaviour  i n the  effectively  by  follows:  SEUs t h a n  predict  session,  larger  (i.e.  subjects'  role play  proposed  more  Hypotheses 0  were not  confirmed  cognitions  or  nonassertive  - - e v i d e n c e was  behavioural  were c o n s i d e r e d  tests,  the  role  population  playing.  the  validity  situations  In c o n c l u s i o n ,  the  SEU  m o d e l may  behaviour  assertion  situations.  m o d e l s be  explored  be  an  purpose of  and  populations.  may  nonassertive not  I t was  be  considered  suggested  assertive  that  by  for  inunderstanding Possible  persons  simpler  interpersonal behaviour.  and  playing  selected  to adopt f o r the  for explaining  requiring  assertive  of r o l e  the  of a s s e r t i v e  different  methodological  and  cognitions  situations  the  studied  perspective  in  for  Numerous p e r t i n e n t  including  appropriate  outcomes of  secured  competence between  populations.  issues  not  in  cognitive  behaviour  :iV Table  of  Contents  ABSTRACT L I S T OF T A B L E S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION Conceptual D e f i n i t i o n s Assessment Inventories R e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h on S o c i a l A n x i e t y , S o c i a l S k i l l s T r a i n i n g and A s s e r t i v e n e s s General Conclusions D e c i s i o n Making Theory: The S u b j e c t i v e Expected U t i l i t y Model Proposed Hypotheses METHOD General Strategy Subjects Procedure RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDICES A p p e n d i x A: T h e A s s e r t i o n I n v e n t o r y A p p e n d i x B: D e s c r i p t i o n o f S i t u a t i o n s R e a d t o to S u b j e c t s i n P a r t I A p p e n d i x C: Q u e s t i o n s A s k e d o f S u b j e c t s i n P a r t A p p e n d i x D: C a t e g o r i e s o f S u b j e c t R e s p o n s e s i n Part I A p p e n d i x E: T r a d i t i o n a l SEU Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A p p e n d i x F: F r e e f o r m SEU Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A p p e n d i x G: D e m o g r a p h i c I n f o r m a t i o n F o r m A p p e n d i x H:. T e n s i o n R a t i n g S c a l e Appendix I: Role P l a y i n g S i t u a t i o n s A p p e n d i x J : P e e r R a t i ng<:Form A p p e n d i x K: S e l f R a t i n g o f B e h a v i o u r A p p e n d i x L: B e h a v i o u r a l R a t i n g S c a l e s A p p e n d i x M: R a t i n g M a n u a l o f B e h a v i o u r s REFERENCES  i i v v i i 1 1 5 11 47 48 57 60 60 60 60 69 92 102 105 I . . 106 107 110 116 121 122 123 125 127 128 130 132  V List  Table' Table Table  Table  Table  Table  Table Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  1: .'.2: '3:  4:  C5:  .6:  7: 8:  :9:  10:  11:  12:  13:  Means o f S e v e r a l All Subjects  of Tables  Key V a r i a b l e s F o r  Means o f O b s e r v e r s ' R a t i n g s Measures For A l l Subjects  70 on  Behavioural 71  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and j t - V a l u e s M e a n SEU S c o r e s F o r Low V e r s u s H i g h Assertive Subjects  on 72  C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n Mean SEUs and Behavioural Ratings f o r Subjects in T r a d i t i o n a l and F r e e f o r m Models Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e t o I n v e s t i g a t e the E f f e c t s o f Model and A s s e r t i o n C o n d i t i o n s on M e a n S E U V a l u e s  73  ....  74  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t>Values o f O b s e r v e r s ' R a t i n g s on B e h a v i o u r a l M e a s u r e s F o r Low V e r s u s H i g h A s s e r t i v e S u b j e c t s  75  Obtained Responses to S i t u a t i o n Low V e r s u s H i g h A s s e r t i v e s  76  4 for  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t^-Values on S e v e r a l M e a s u r e s f o r Low V e r s u s High A s s e r t i v e S u b j e c t s Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t.-Values on O u t c o m e s L i s t e d b y Low V e r s u s H i g h A s s e r t i v e S u b j e c t s W i t h i n Freeform Model  77  ...  79  U t i l i t i e s o f F i r s t O u t c o m e s L i s t e d by Low V e r s u s H i g h A s s e r t i v e S u b j e c t s W i t h i n Freeform Model  80  Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and t_-Values on V a r i o u s M e a s u r e s F o r T r a d i t i o n a l Versus Freeform Subjects  83  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t_-Values on V a r i o u s M e a s u r e s F o r T r a d i t i o n a l Versus Freeform Subjects  85  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and ^ - V a l u e s o f O b s e r v e r s ' R a t i n g s on B e h a v i o u r a l Measures f o r T r a d i t i o n a l Versus Freeform Subjects  86  vi Table Table Table  Table  14^: 15: 16:  17:  Obtained Responses to S i t u a t i o n 4 For T r a d i t i o n a l Versus Freeform Subjects  88  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Males and Females A s s e r t i o n and Model C o n d i t i o n s  89  into  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t^-Values f o r M a l e s V e r s u s F e m a l e s on S e v e r a l Measures  90  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t V a l u e s f o r M a l e s V e r s u s F e m a l e s on B e h a v i o u r a l Role Playing Measures  91  Acknowl edgenfents  I would have spent complete Alden Dr.  t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o a l l t h o s e  a g r e a t deal o f time and e f f o r t  this  thesis,  and committee  their  I would  i n h e l p i n g me  0.  also like  Davidson  and  to express  a i d i n the actual running of the experiment  I would  t h e s i s would  Lynn  )rr.  my  t o S a n d y B i c h a r d , L o r y B l o c k a n d L i n d a Wong f o r  Klaus and Marsha Schroeder Finally  who  e s p e c i a l l y my T h e s i s A d v i s o r , D r .  members, Dr. Park  J e r r y S. W i g g i n s .  appreciation for  like  like  never  f o r their  to thank  have been  Lome  statistical  and t o  expertise.  C a p p e , w i t h o u t whom  completed.  this  1  Introduction Conceptual  Definitions  Social of  anxiety  i n d i v i d u a l s who  Richardson social  and  has  been acknowledged  seek psychotherapy  Tasto  be  pinpointed  as  Social  by  discomfort  and  accompanied Speculated social  proval  as  evaluative  D i x o n , de  presence of but  dreaming  and  externalize  the  these  also  shy  experiences.  of  attending  to  Along  neurotic  extrapunitive  these  social  to  social  only  s h y n e s s and as  In f a c t , Z i m b a r d o  note  the  indiv-  environment.  a c l a s s of s o c i a l  depersonalization.  depressive  depression  part  vein,  anxieties  with  i . e . his tendency  and  disapcues  They  is his preoccupation  blame, ward o f f g u i l t  the  different  symptoms.  &  the  interpersonal  a f f e c t not  impulses,  by m o s t p a t i e n t s  (Richardson  to avoid  s h y n e s s as  resemblances  to  behaviour,  (1957) view the  person  interactions  fear reactions  a slightly  anxieties  of  interpreted  ( 1975 ) c o n c e p t u a l i z e  his surrounding  on  draws p a r a l l e l s between reported  as  1975).  social situations.  highly motivated  Sandler  dynamic  Characterizing  as  is  cause  in social  include  group of n e u r o t i c  (1972) focuses having  Sarason  well  Monchaux and  himself,  phobia,  are  avoidance of  in nature.  of a broader  the  Kaplan  anxiety  some c o m b i n a t i o n  S m i t h and  of others,  part  or  anxious person  are  idual  increased  thinking  197J6).  socially  that  an  Arkowitz,  a primary  situations, ineffective interpersonal  Tasto,  as  by  ( 1 9 7 5 ) as  origins.of social anxiety  irrational  that  Arkowitz  and  complaint  inadequate or d i s t r e s s f u l  many f o r m s o f p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y . Clark  a common  (Clark  (1976) note that  r e l a t i o n s h i p s may  as  of  to  affect. in that  their daily  (1977) r e p o r t s  day-  Kaplan  both life  t h a t more  than  2 80%  o f 5000 American  people  r e c e n t l y surveyed  t h e y w e r e s h y a t some p o i n t i n t h e i r 40%  labelled  uished and to  shyness,  some s i t u a t i o n s not l a b e l  t h e y had ardo  was  shyness Social  Fewer than  as shy and  experienced feelings  skills  skills  as t h e a b i l i t y not emit  training  has  defines  iours  skills  to emit  Although  Zimbr  to note  t h a t no  definition  Admitting  his  further concluded  skills  will  skills  of f a u l t y  as  inter-  Wright,  1976; studied  indi vdduals, d e f i n e the  concept  which  will  be p u n i s h e d . exist.  As  skills  social  be r e i n f o r c e d a n d , Numerous  other  an e x a m p l e , W e i s s  of a l i s t e n e r  interest with another  (1965) d e f i n e s s o c i a l  origins  1976;  Lewinsohn  as t h e a b i l i t y  and  i n the past decade  ( 1 9 7 3 ) who  behaviours  which  of social  social  due  surveyed  reported that  of shyness.  & Berger,  t h a t enhance the i n d i v i d u a l  Suspect  surveyed)  their reaction  of those  o n l y 7%  emerged  L i b e t and  of depressed  understanding  Argyris  of those  more e f f e c t i v e ways o f  (e.g. White  behaviours  definitions  20%  disting-  i s a u n i v e r s a l phenomenon.  & Rose, 1976).  the s o c i a l  25%  label  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , Zimbardo  with others  Schinke  Zimbardo  over  as r a n g i n g f r o m m i l d d i s c o m f o r t t o  a means to t e a c h i n d i v i d u a l s acting  Of t h e s e ,  provided f o r those surveyed.  somewhat broad  icate  (about  neurosis, i t is interesting  shyness  that  as shy.  d e s c r i b e s shyness  extreme  shy  i . e . t h o s e who  themselves  never  lives.  as shy a t p r e s e n t .  between the c h r o n i c a l l y  situational  did  of  themselves  reported that  to  (1968)  commun-  individual.  as t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v -  as a member o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n . skills  to lack of experience, f a u l t y  include a deficit l e a r n i n g or  of  biological  3 dysfunction (Curran,  ( G o l d s m i t h & M c F a l l , 1 975 ) ; c o n d i t i o n e d a n x i e t y  1977;  Curran,  & Gilbert,  processes  (Clark & Arkowitz,  Smith  Sarason,  and  1975).  1975);  1975;  or f a u l t y c o g n i t i v e  Rehm a n d  Marston,  Programs developed  1968;  to teach  social  skills  have emphasized  the components of behaviour r e h e a r s a l  (White  & Berger,  Schinke  sensitization Lambert  and  1976;  (Wright,  Kellett,  response  combination  1976),  1978;  modeling  skills  Lewinsohn, & Varney,  1976),  interpersonal1y psychiatric Eisler, Jaffe Lambert Hersen  ert,  speech  unskilled  Shepherd,  Turner,  1977;  1976;  1978;  &  (Libet  assaultive patients (Wright, (White  & Winter,  socially  and (Quinsey  1976),  & Berger,  1976)  Edelstein &  college students & Anderson,  Twentyman & M c F a l l , 1975;  1978;  & Turner,  isolated  Winter,  has i n v e s t i g a t e d  individuals  B e l l a c k , Hersen  1978),  or a  Gutride, G o l d s t e i n & Hunter,  Marzillier  1976;  & Carlson,  Marzillier  Research  college students  1976;  1973;  Marzillier, 1976;  Bellack,  college students (Little,  Curran  &  1 975 ; G r e e n w a l d ,  Barlow,  Blanchard,  the broad  skills,  perhaps  spectrum  of social  anxiety, shyness,  the most t h o r o u g h l y r e s e a r c h e d  area  Gilb1 977 ;  Bristow  1977).  Within social  1976)  individuals  1.977 ; C h t f i s t e n s e n , A r k o w i t z  & Young,  & Eisler,  1976).  anxious  h e t e r o s e x u a l 1y a n x i o u s  Curran,  (Jaffe  & Eisler,  institutionalized  & Kellett,  de-  & Eisler,  coaching  with depressed  C a r l s o n , 1976;  and  (Edelstein  p a t i e n t s ( G o l d s m i t h & M c F a l l , 1975;  1976;  and  (Edelstein  & Turner,  training  1973),  1973),  (Edelstein  B e l l a c k , Hersen  social  and  feedback  of these  systematic  1 976 ; C u r r a n d S G G i l b e r t , 1 975 ; M a r z i l l i e r ,  Gutride, G o l d s t e i n & Hunter, 1976),  & Rose, 1976),  and  4 is  that of a s s e r t i v e n e s s (e.g. Rathus,  Hoilandsworth, 1971;  Hersen,  Turner  1977;  Wolfe  Eisler  & Fodor,  & Miller,  & Adams, 1977;  Flowers  Y o u n g , Rimm & K e n n e d y , 1 9 7 2 ; Consequently,  example, a l l s o c i a l l y  rights  feelings  McFall &  1972;  Lillesand,  & Gottman,  1974;  Rosenthal  various definitions  Serber,  Schwartz  & Guerra,  exist--for and  1977;  1973;  and  1972;  Kazdin,  & Reese,  of the concept  1976;  1976; 1975).  of a s s e r t i o n  acceptable expressions  (Wolpe & L a z a r u s , 1966);  the s k i l l  of to  s e e k , m a i n t a i n o r e n h a n c e r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n an i n t e r p e r s o n a l situation  through  expression  risks  an e x p r e s s i o n o f f e e l i n g s  l o s s of r e i n f o r c e m e n t or even  (Rich & Schroeder, (Warren  & Gilner,  provoke  less  which  1976); 1978);  anger  enables  a person  which  has  elicit  & Cooley,  compliance  1978);  been taken  to  of others  (Alberti  distinguish  those which  his  which  i s used  to accomplish  of others.  Such  of the r e c i p i e n t  describes  aggressive responses  these  two  (1978) concluded  responses  response ends  at  usually hurt others,  Hoi 1 a n d s w o r t h  as t h o s e which In i n v e s t i g a t i n g Hoi 1 a n d s w o r t h  that a s s e r t i v e responses  1974).  assertive.  In a l l c a s e s , h o w e v e r ,  types of behaviour,  rights  between those  individual's  responses  are denied.  w h i l e a s s e r t i v e o n e s do n o t .  an  stand  & Emmons,  are l a b e l l e d  and  behaviour  best interest,  undue a n x i e t y , to e x p r e s s  them down o r h u m i l i a t e t h e m .  of  punishment  & Emmons ( 1 9 7 4 ) c h a r a c t e r i z e an a g g r e s s i v e  the expense  rights  which  t o a c t i n h i s own  are a g g r e s s i v e from  Alberti as one  responses  d e s t r o y i n g the r i g h t s  Care  such  the e x p r e s s i o n of a l l f e e l i n g s  (Hoi 1andsworth  up f o r h i m s e l f w i t h o u t without  o r w a n t s when  put  the  ( 1 977 )  employ c o e r c i o n , the and  elicited  consequences Cooley more  compliance  5 and  provoked  l e s s anger than  aggressive  In a d d i t i o n t o a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e must i n c l u d e components which fluency,  facial  be  one  taught  Assessment  the  little  Serber using  nonverbal  loudness  repeated  of v o i c e ,  and  suggests  assertive  verbal  distance  that these  modeling  from  behaviours  and  role  has  to a s s e s s Sandler  focused  and  on  the  playing.  measure s o c i a l  (1957) s e l e c t e d Inventory  When c o n s i d e r e d  development  26  anxiety.  items  to e m p i r i c a l l y  as a t o t a l ,  the  four  and  fear of revealing  i n d i v i d u a l ' s general this inventory  population  and  inferiority)  social anxiety.  was  constructed  r e f e r s more to  with  'public' rather  classify  of  indicate  It should  f o r use  from  derived  ( s o c i a l t i m i d i t y , fear of loss of c o n t r o l , fear  exhibitionism  that  overall  body e x p r e s s i o n  Self-Assessment  anxiety..  factors  contact,  research  M o n c h a u x and  Tavistock  social  an  Inventories  inventories designed  D i x o n , de  an  1 972 ) .  at a time,  Relatively of  eye  expression,  (Serber,  content,  a mastery of appropriate  include  reciptient  responses.  be  noted  a psychiatric  than' intimate' 1  socialsituations. Richardson (a r e v i s e d assess  and  Tasto  (1976) developed  100-item  scale  is a v a i l a b l e ) designed  s o c i a l f e a r s and  indicate  how  anxious  anxiety.  they  feel  a 166-item  I n d i v i d u a l s are  in each of the  Seven f a c t o r s emerged--fears of d i s a p p r o v a l , anger expression, warmth, c o n f l i c t  heterosexual with  parents  contact, and  Perhaps the most f r e q u e n t l y assess  social anxiety  are  those  to  systematically  required  listed social  intimacy  interpersonal used  inventory  situations. assertiveness,  and  interpersonal  loss.  inventories designed  developed  by  to  Watson and  to  Friend  (1969).  Two  s c a l e s were d e v i s e d - - a  A v o i d a n c e and Evaluation  D i s t r e s s (SAD)  Scale  (FNE).  subscales  of s o c i a l  avoidance  was  with,  SAD  as  emotion  high  scores  SAD  a c t i o n s and  the  SAD  scale.  as a p p r e h e n s i o n  who  s c o r e s ^ h i g h l y on  approval Friend  into social  and  the  FNE  being  reason,  the  anxious  avoidance  than is  s c a l e may  that the obtained  have inter-  portrayed that  females  conceptualized  of others'  evaluations.  a  in social  They are  Evaluation  and  of  It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note  their negative  is best conceived  Negative  I n d i v i d u a l s who  situations.  as a n a t u r a l means to a v o i d speculate  of  experience  uncomfortable  of Negative  regarding  d i s t r e s s over  t o be  social  f o r any  reported  as more s o c i a l l y  Fear  and  others  the  isolated.  males rated themselves  Fear  d i s t r e s s , where  interactions.  to a v o i d and  social  from  are expected  as o f t e n f e a r f u l  a 30-item  (the a c t or d e s i r e of) a v o i d i n g  in social  tend  and  true/false Social  Scale.was further divided  and  d i s t r e s s r e f e r r e d t o as  negative  SAD)  The  t a l k i n g t o , or escaping  social  on  Scale  avoidance  defined  28-item  evaluations  An i n d i v i d u a l  seek to g a i n disapproval.  a m o u n t o f FNE  o f as a f u n c t i o n o f p a s t  social Watson  (and  and  possible  punishment  or  frustration. As  was  the  been d e v e l o p e d tend  to use  anxiety,  the  or the  case  is  social  to measure s o c i a l W a t s o n and Gambrill  inventories designed The  with  few  skills.  Rather,  Friend  and  performance  researchers  (1975) or Rathus  (1973)  assertiveness.  designed by  have  social  S o c i a l Performance Survey  social  inventories  (1969) measures of  Richey  to assess  a 100-item questionnaire  overall  anxiety,  Schedule  (Lowe & C a u t e l a ,  to i l l u s t r a t e  i n d i c a t i n g the  1978)  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  frequency  with  7 which  he e n g a g e s Levenson  i n 50 p o s i t i v e a n d  and  Gottman  and  engaged  social  The  between c l i e n t s  skills  t r a i n i n g ) and  between c l i e n t s  Interpersonal  "normal"  and  expected  found  to  s i g n e d ^ up)., f o r  student  with d a t i n g problems  in  behaviours  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was ( s t u d e n t s who  self-  competence  f e e l i n g s o f d i s c o m f o r t and  competence were a s s e s s e d . discriminate  18-item  to measure s o c i a l  assertion situations.  i n , accompanying  behaviours.  ( 1 9 7 8 ) c o n s t r u c t e d an  report questionnaire designed dating  50 n e g a t i v e  populations,  and,  those with a s s e r t i o n  problems. Several behaviour  i n v e n t o r i e s have been d e s i g n e d  (e.g. Wolpe & L a z a r u s ,  Guilford  & Zimmerman, 1956),  o f t h e s e m e a s u r e s has SChroeder,  1976).  one;constructed  Although  satisfactory  has  (1973).  characteristic  each  reliability  been d e m o n s t r a t e d , i n i t s scope  towards  a s s e r t i o n , r a t h e r than  R e s p o n s e s on developed with The  limitation  validity  (Rich & 5 been  the  are r e q u i r e d items  validity  i s of  of this  to  them. measure  as  i t reflects  a global measure of a t t i t u d e  responses  to s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s  1976). the C o n f l i c t  by M c F a l l  behavioural  o f t h e 30 and  and/or  m e a s u r e has  Subjects  and  the Rathus A s s e r t i v e n e s s S c a l e i s somewhat  limited  (Rich & Schroeder,  1968;  reliability  f r e q u e n t l y used  by R a t h u s  how  the  Friedman,  been s e r i o u s l y q u e s t i o n e d  One  indicate  but  1966;  to measure a s s e r t i v e  and  Resolution Inventory  Lillesand  (1971) c o r r e l a t e s a t i s f a c t o r i l y  ratings, illustrating  o f t h e CRI  the  validity  is that i t assesses  of a s s e r t i v e n e s s , the r e f u s a l  (CRI),  of unreasonable  of this  o n l y one requests.  scale.  aspect  8 The was  Behavioural  designed  assertion couples  by W a r r e n a n d  who  had  pool  o f 55)  Each  partner  with  (fully  feelings).  S c a l e and  the  consistency validity  Richey  (no  on  the  response  to the  reliable  and  responses.  Two  Content  response,  of  ations,  the  valid  full  handling  criticism,  Form, S o c i a l  social  was  .79),  and  likelihood  of engaging  with  Desirability  concurrent  of the  BTTE.  inventory  in specific  with  giving negative i n an  sit-  measure, Gambill  and  (using college the degree  of  s i t u a t i o n s , in which F u r t h e r , the  expressing  inven-  require  personal  contacts, expressing  differing  of  satisfactoryinternal  t o be m o r e a s s e r t i v e .  situations  expression  expression  information regarding  t u r n i n g down r e q u e s t s ,  initiating  indep-  response)  samples e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s of s i t u a t i o n s that  assertion:  and  r a t i n g s , coupled  Rating  a 40-item  individual feels like  a larger  need f o r a more c o m p r e h e n s i v e ,  (1975) c o n s t r u c t e d  would  married,  tape  i t i t e r - j u d g e • r e ! i a b i 1 i t y (.86)  an  were  B T T E on  or a punishing  the e x p r e s s i o n  students), which provides  tory  partner's  Love S c a l e , confirmed  specific,  a person  to the  (spl i.t--hal f r e l i a b i l i t y  and  discomfort  responded  Partner's  volunteer  in intimate relationships.  a s s e r t i v e , tender  In r e s p o n s e uation-  behaviour  R e s u l t s on  obtained  41  r o l e p l a y i n g s i t u a t i o n s (from  also rated a l l responses. one  (BTTE)  relationships.  n i n e m o n t h s o r who  r a t e d h i s or her  r a t e d from  those  15  individually  judges  to f o u r  at least  concerning  subsequently  was  dated  Expression  G i l n e r (1978) to measure p o s i t i v e  in intimate heterosexual  were p r e s e n t e d  endent  Test of Tenderness  limit-  positive feeling,  others, assertion in service  feedback.  Males reported  a s s e r t i v e behaviour  and  less  females  9 were more l i k e l y  not  very uncomfortable of  specific  to  resist  when p r e s e n t e d  behaviour  with  whether they  likely  than  o v e r t u r e s , t u r n down a r e q u e s t  have o f f e n d e d  they were l e s s  i f they  the s i t u a t i o n .  s i t u a t i o n s , males were l e s s  sexual  criticism  to engage i n the  likely  of t h e i r  someone w h i l e  to request  a date  felt In  females  to date  females  terms  or  reported  or d i s c u s s  ask that  someone6s  work.  C r i t i que Although  several satisfactory  there appears consuming  t o be a d e a r t h o f v a l i d ,  assessment  t o o l s to choose  true w i t h i n the area of s o c i a l t h e G a m b r i l l and  Richey  their  scope  ( 1 9 7 3 ) and  (1975) and  assess  of a p p l i c a t i o n .  Dixon,  specific  situations.  Other  and  Tasto's  (1976) and  Lowe and  the  time  instruments  ulation,  thereby  de M o n c h a u x a n d psychiatric in  consuming  Sandler  McFall  and  Sandler  Cautela's  social  Lillesand  Friend  general  Filner  (1969)  limited the  Rathus  reactions  as  (1978) are  Richardson quite  F u r t h e r , most with  a specific  applicability. their  popDixon,  (1978) f o r those  i n d a t i n g and  (1971) d e a l t o n l y with  of  inventory for  r e l a t i o n s h i p s , Levenson  competence  of  (1957) i n v e n t o r i e s  to a d m i n i s t e r .  p a t i e n t s , W a r r e n and  (1978) a s s e s s e s  the e x c e p t i o n  i n v e n t o r i e s , such  their  especially  i n v e n t o r i e s are  (1957) designed  intimate heterosexual  With  Watson and  were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r use limiting  This is  u h a s s e r t i o n , r a t h e r than  to  l e n g t h y and  from.  in general,  non-time  For example, both  de M o n c h a u x a n d  g l o b a l a n x i e t y and  reliable,  skills.  i n v e n t o r i e s , most of the r e m a i n i n g in  inventories exist,  and  involved  Gottman's  a s s e r t i o n , and  refusal  of  unreasonable  10  requests  in assessing  assertion.  Although  ment  i s indeed  e s s e n t i a l , there  ents  w h i c h may  be a p p l i e d t o m o r e  In summary the  then,  general,  few o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t  anxiety,  social  skills  specific  exists a s c a r c i t y of  previously stated requirements  of social  such  extensive  tools possess  measure-  instrumpopulations. a l l of  f o r s a t i s f a c t o r y measurement and a s s e r t i o n .  11 R e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h on and  section will  of s o c i a l a n x i e t y ,  examine research  social skills  purposes of c l a r i t y ,  subdivided the  into these  studies will  Social  the  three  cohoilQde  the  and  and  the  basis  and  on  unassertive  A-S  Scale  Subjects  effective  will  be  summarizing  review.  behaviour  i n the  interpersonal  Compared  significantly  on  the  S-R  who  behaviour  outside  self-report were found). significant, Rehm a n d r a t e and  (12  the  the  Inventory  rehearsal  Differences  accuracy  females.  who  socially  of  Temperament  treatment  were m a i n t a i n e d  (1968) s t u d i e d  but  I t was  problemgroups  assertive  no no  responses  by m e a n s false  of  reports  longer  assessment. the  e f f e c t s of  of p o s i t i v e self-reinforcement reported  played subjects  to models of  c h e c k s w e r e made and  on  Anxiousness  group r o l e  number o f v e r b a l  a t a s i x week f o l l o w - u p Marston  increas-  to s i t u a t i o n s , w h i l e  group, both  six  were chosen  g r o u p s i t u a t i o n , as m e a s u r e d  validity  students  involving  to a c o n t r o l  on  of  Gui1 f o r d - Z i m m e r m a n  responses  increased  e f f e c t s of  a s s e r t i v e responses  college students,  of the  the  rehearsal  s o c i a l l e a r n i n g group were exposed  solving.  college  areas  assertion.  A table  (1970) s t u d i e d  of verbal  of t h e i r scores  the  Survey.  emitted  to the  presented  categories.  this  Weinhold  frequency  anxious  in the  relevant  t r a i n i n g and  research  weeks of s o c i a l l e a r n i n g v e r s u s  the  Training  Anxiety  Hedquist  ing  Social Skills  Assertiveness This  For  Social Anxiety,  f e e l i n g anxious  hypothesized  that  increasing of  male  in social situations an  increment  in  12 positive  s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n twould  concept.  This would,  produce  in turn, reduce  increase  subjects' approach  assigned  t o one  a more p o s i t i v e  a n x i e t y and  subsequently  to f e a r e d s i t u a t i o n s .  of three groups:  increasing  24 m a l e s  positive  forcement  while working  countered  between s e s s i o n s , n o n - d i r e c t i v e t h e r a p y , or  m e n t t o w o r k on t h e i r improved and  a simulated social Smith feedback  and  and  on t h e FNE  i n w i t h f e m a l e s and  Sarason  107  scale.  (1975)  rated  others'  anxious  college  f e m a l e s who  students.  Subjects role  received this  evaluation.  M o d e r a t e l y and  asked The  highly anxious  r e p o r t e d t h a t they would  a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n , and  as b e i n g  feel  as b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y (1975)  socially  anxious male c o l l e g e  positive  aspects of their  aspects.  12 h i g h a n d  to  high  then  were  imagine  s u b j e c t s then concerning  persons  their  rated  significantly  group.  These  more b a d l y about  the high anxious  Arkowitz  and  played themselves,  evaluations of themselves  C l a r k and  during  S u b j e c t s were  s c o r e d low, moderate  more u n f a v o u r a b l e t h a n the low a n x i o u s also  activities,  verbalization  numerous a s p e c t s of the j u d g e s ' r a t i n g s  performance.  group  s t u d i e d the r o l e of n e g a t i v e  g i v e n a somewhat n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n , and t h a t t h e y had  en-  interaction.  on s o c i a l l y  104 m a l e s  of discomfort  ;  encourage-  S u b j e c t s i n the treatment  m o s t on v e r b a l s e l f - r e p o r t s  were  self-rein-  through a hierarchy of situations  own.  b e h a v i o u r s engaged  self  group  rated  two the  groups nega-  themselves  t o r e c e i v e s u c h an e v a l u a t i o n .  investigated s t u d e n t s would  performance  12 l o w s o c i a l l y  and  the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t underestimate  overestimate negative  anxious males  (who  13 scored who  i n the lower  interacted  ance.  with female  s c a l e g i v e n t o 85  confederates rated their  High anxious  n e g a t i v e and skills,  and  anxiety, similar skills  underestimated  positive  to themselves  high anxious  groups  persons  may  population,  social  a n x i e t y as  more  social  C l a r k and  e v a l u a t i o n s between  reflect  the s e l e c t i v e  social  and  skills  skills  heterosexua11y  a t t e n d i n g of  college  students.  Wright  skills  has  focused  subjects.  of aiding  college  more c o m f o r t a b l e i n c l a s s  s t u d e n t s were a s s i g n e d to each conditions.  (1976)  training  questions,  summarizing  Techniques  used  Social  discussions.  investigated in relation  An  to  group,  average  of the three mentioned treatment groups  skills  statements  included role  analogue  s t u d e n t s to p a r t i c i p a t e more  S u b j e c t s i n t h e two  a week f o r f i v e weeks.  Some  on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  s y s t e m a t i c d e s e n s i t.i;za<Mon o r a no t r e a t m e n t c o n t r o l  feel  high  performance.  training  anxious  however been c o n d u c t e d  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s o c i a l  the purpose  Arkowitz  Training  on p s y c h i a t r i c has,  but a t t r i b u t e d  social  in self  For the most p a r t , s o c i a l  research  trained  to n e g a t i v e aspects while s c r e e n i n g out  aspects of their  Skills  For  social  than d i d the judges.  that differences  low a n x i o u s  positive  aspects of their  subjects rated their  to the judgess r a t i n g s ,  of  perform-  overestimated  d i d so i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n .  low a n x i o u s  concluded  Social  subjects significantly  males) own  These r a t i n g s were compared w i t h the r a t i n g s  judges.  and  2 5 % on t h e SAD  and  training  met  of  for and 17  treatment once  involved asking  initiating  -speech.  playing, modeling, rehearsal,  14  coaching  and  training  surpassed  ratings  reinforcement.  that  and  systematic  generally,  group.  program which  who  Berger  None o f the  by a mental  included  but  active  rehearsal  i n the  subjects  e f f e c t s o f a combined andsocial  health  college  plush  learning students  clinic.  Social  i nl e s s than  three  o feight  i n the  sessions  A control  assertion  i n r e l a t i o n t o the  training. control  treatment groups evidenced 14 s t u d e n t s  Each o f the  social past  weekly two hour  and  in-  significantly was sub-  i n a t l e a s t o n e campus s o c i a l a c t i v i t y and  Rose  discussion.  a friendship.  (.1976) s t u d i e d  contingency For  programs were d e v i s e d . by  that  hade s t a b l i s h e d  S c h i n k e and  ioural  indicated  students  one  produced  o f the  and behaviour rehearsal.  s o c i a l competence.  sequently  the  l i t e r a t u r e on s o c i a l s k i l l s  subjects,  all  modeling  assessment  greater  ratings  as involvement  Treament consisted  group read Post  in observers'  f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h onef r i e n d s h i p  years.  setting,  training  conditions  behaviour rehearsal  competence was d e f i n e d  which  social skills  were s o c i a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t  hadbeen r e f e r r e d  two  observers'  in a simulated  three  (1976) e x a m i n e d  included  Subjects  e v e n t s and  i nthe  skill  environment.  W h i t e and  theory.  improvement  that  two groups on  ofverbalizations  improvements  a natural  indicated  d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n  control  significant in  remaining  o f frequencies  but  to the  the  Results  the  contracting,  effects o f behaviour compared with  t h i s p u r p o s e , two group In t h i s study,  newspaper a d v e r t i s i n g ,  posters  subjects  behav-  counselling were e n l i s t e d  and r e f e r r a l s from  social)  15 treatment agencies. C u r r a n and subjects  revealed  students  and  differences  subjects  and  to which component Significant subjects  test)  i n the  control  recruiting  together,  the  newpapers.  supported  the  college  Although on  results  a  be-  experimental  month f o l l o w - u p ,  for treatment  (behavioural  condition  i t is unclear  d i d e x i s t between the group  two  criterion  between  overall assertion  is responsible  differences  against  experienced,  (rated  at a three  taken  Little,  in treatment motivation,  r e c r u i t e d by  role playing  post-test  as,  degree of a n x i e t y  dependent measures  havioural on  ( 1 9 7 7 ) and  G i l b e r t (1977), however, caution  b e h a v i o u r s and  the  Arkowitz  from d i f f e r e n t sources,  studies  on  R o y c e and  as  effects.  two  groups,  discussion)  yet  also  improved. Research with on  the  s p e c i f i c a t i o n of those  responsible previously efficacy sal  psychiatric inpatients  f o r improvement stated,  of these  have s t u d i e d  1975;  (e.g-.  focused  functioning. the  Jaffe & Carlson,  M a r z i l l i e r , L a m b e r t and  are As  relative  instructions, feedback, behaviour  o r some c o m b i n a t i o n McFall,  primarily  components which  in social s k i l l  investigations  of modeling,  G o l d s m i t h and  behavioural  has  rehear1 976 ;  Kellett,  1976). . Jaffe and  and  Carlson  i n s t r u c t i o n s on  were a s s i g n e d  and  mostly  i n the  chronic  by  natural  given  on  behavioural  an  the  e f f e c t s of  p s y c h i a t r i c males.  to e i t h e r a m o d e l i n g ,  t r e a t m e n t w h i c h was assessed  21  (1976) examined  Patients  i n s t r u c t i o n s or  individual basis. ratings  environment of the  attention Outcome  in simulated hospital.  modeling  was  situations  Both  modeling  16 and in  i n s t r u c t i o n s were s u c c e s s f u l i n i m p r o v i n g both of these  treatment. added  The  little In  s e t t i n g s , as c o m p a r e d authors  skills  instructions  and  feedback  was  these  two  treatments  contact, affect, u n c l e a r how  on  g e s t u r e s and  implemented  overall  but t h i s  sessions.  Although  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of modeling,  feedback,  the a u t h o r s were unable  suggested feedback frequency creased  required of  more e f f e c t i v e  o f g e s t u r e s and  ratings of affect  that modeling skills,  of the modeling  for others.  training  Hersen  the  results  reilative I t was,  however,  change i n eye  The  authors  thus  contact,  alone i n concluded  t o t e a c h some c o m p o n e n t s o f  Evidence  and  and  of model i n q ,!sinstKuctdonsaand  in promoting  only.  was  presented  f o r the  to s i t u a t i o n s not worked Turner  eye  It is  instructions,  t o 'judge  effects  of  plus i n s t r u c t i o n s plus feedback  t r a n s f e r of training Bellack,  the  a f f e c t , while modeling  is beneficial  while modeling  the  be v e r y g e n e r a l l y  condition alone.  that the combination was  to assess  can  plus  (1976).  assertiveness.  supported  effectiveness  interact.  of a male s c h i z o p h r e n i c  compared with modeling  lasted  a s r o u g h l y 50  modeling  to  selected target behaviours  long treatment  approximated  how  b y E d e l s t e i n arid E i s l e r  A m u l t i p l e b a s e l i n e d e s i g n was of  t h a t the component of  training  the use o f m o d e l i n g  skills  to the a t t e n t i o n  t o i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o p a t i e n t s on  the s o c i a l  patient,  concluded  social  social may  be  effects  on.  (1976) e v a l u a t e d a s o c i a l  skills  program f o r three c h r o n i c s c h i z o p h r e n i c p a t i e n t s i n  approximately behaviours  27  individual  sessions.  were s e l e c t e d to work on,  F i v e to seven using  target  instructions,  17  feedback and m o d e l i n g .  These were implemented  multiple-  design.  The a u t h o r s  patients  iiimproved  a s a r e s u l t o f t h e t r a i n i n g a n d t h i s was  on an e i g h t  that  a  baseline  maintained  concluded  using  two o f t h e  t o t e n week f o l l o w - u p  (assessment  was  measured  by means o f b e h a v i o u r a l  Specific  components o f the program were n o t i n d i v i d u a l l y  Generalization  effects transferred  G o l d s m i t h and McFall patients skill for  t o one o f t h r e e  program included feedback.  Post  (1975)«assigned  assessment  indicated  t h e two c o n t r o l  generalization. their  Again,  there  The authors  to t h e p a t i e n t l s s i n d i v i d u a ! Marzillier, systematic  21  psychiatric outpatients,  Subjects  performance  that  were a s s i g n e d  on  self-  in specific  t r a i n i n g was  u n i t s and advanced  of very according  progress. the effects  t r a i n i n g on  l a b e l l e d as s o c i a l l y i n a d e q u a t e .  t o one o f t h r e e  social skills  groups:  both treatments  systematic  training (this included  m o d e l i n g , and f e e d b a c k ) o r a w a i t i n g  On p o s t - t e s t ,  and  receiving  the success  d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and s o c i a l s k i l l s  desensitization, playing,  subjects  Lambert and K e l l e t t (1976) s t u d i e d  of  training  was e v i d e n c e o f t r e a t m e n t  speculate  b r o k e n down i n t o s m a l l  control)  skill  conditions  p r o g r a m may be d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t  repetitive,  psychiatric  modeling, coaching that  assessed.  (interpersonal  The i n t e r p e r s o n a l  report measures of comfort, behavioural problem s i t u a t i o n s .  36 m a l e  or assessment  behaviour rehearsal,  behaviours).  situations.  treatment conditions  hours.  t r a i n i n g surpassed  of the target  to untrained  training, pseudotherapy control  a total of three  skill  ratings  three  list  role  control.  l e d to s i g n i f i c a n t improvements i n  18 the  p a t i e n t s ' range of s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s  Although  both  treated  and  social  g r o u p s improved more than  group, the  o v e r a l l e f f e c t s on m o s t m e a s u r e s  improvment  in social skills  and  clinical  contacts.  the  control  (anxiety  reduction,  a d j u s t m e n t ) were  not  statistically significant. Implementing Marzillier with  and  Winter  (1978) t r a i n e d four  relaxation t r a i n i n g , videotaped  Target both  behaviours  before  three  and  of the  subject  after training.  four patients but  improved  not  of s t r u c t u r e d behaviour  Goldstein  and  concluded  that  a f t e r t r a i n i n g (the  fourth  a l l improvements presented  o f 87  acute  and  learning plus  are  (eye  contact,  of t a l k i n g , etc.)  were r a t e d  setting.  suggested  obtained simulated  Results on  f o u r of the  s e t t i n g but  naturalistic significant  environment. results only  effects  social interaction  psychiatric inpatients. therapy  program  or to a c o n t r o l  consisted  forward  leaning,  in a simulated that  Behav-  smiling,  length  and n a t u r a l i s t i c  significant differences  main e f f e c t s were o b t a i n e d Further, in the  Subjects  group.  seven s p e c i f i e d behaviours  no  the  social reinforcement.  to t h i s treatment  measures  (1973) examined  to improve the  chronic  of modeling, r o l e p l a y i n g were a s s i g n e d  Hunter  learning therapy  f o u r week s t r u c t u r e d  therapy.  rated  evident.  Gutride,  ioural  authors  outpatients  instructions.  r o l e p l a y i n g was  The  designs,  psychiatric  f e e d b a c k and  w e r e s p e c i f i e d and  dropped out)  clearly  The  a s e r i e s of c o n t r o l l e d w i t h i n - s u b j e c t  psychotherapy  in in  were  the the  produced  absence of s t r u c t u r e d  learning  19 To  test  the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the depressed  skilled  than  non-depressed  individuals,  ( 1 9 7 3 ) a s s i g n e d 12 d e p r e s s e d groups.  Sessions in both  verbal role  and  non-depresseds  groups  were d e s i g n e d  interpersonal behaviour  playing, skills  assessment  p r a c t i c e and  non-depressed  s u b j e c t s on  social  i . e . response  number o f p e r s o n s  Based  train  on  institutionalized  authors  feel  training  hospital, group  targets  s u b j e c t s scored lower  and  than  of  behaviour  spoke to i n the gwoup,  Varney  (1977) designed  assaultive patients.  frequency  and  skills a game t o  game r e q u i r e s t h a t p a t i e n t s d e a l  players receive feedback others'  and  have  the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of  social  of treatment  o r no  feedback.  day  treatment  paid to i n c r e a s e the  s e s s i o n s , emphasize  d i f f e r e n c e s . Subjects i n the treatment  and  the  responses.  A t t e n t i o n was  t w i c e a week f o r s i x weeks and reinforcement  is  of target behaviours.  setting  o r g a n i z i n g r e i n f o r c e m e n t s , as w e l l as t a k i n g  of i n d i v i d u a l  the  Reinforcement  s u b j e c t s were a s s i g n e d to a t r e a t m e n t  and  Post  engaged i n .  to f a c i l i t a t e  1978).  two  problem-solving,  f o r 14 c h r o n i c p a t i e n t s i n a p s y c h i a t r i c  (Shepherd,  duration  now",  to o b s e r v e  In a t t e m p t i n g skills  and  that their  and  of  facilitate  other a c t i v i t i e s .  the p a t i e n t ' s demonstration  waUh t h e " h e r e opportunity  to  latency, initiation  the i n d i v i d u a l  be f u n , Q u i n s e y  llewisohn  t o one  the c o n v i c t i o n that l e a r n i n g s o c i a l  c o n t i n g e n t on The  of  and  socially  several o p e r a t i o n a l measures  the amount o f v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r  should  by u s e  revealed that depressed  skill,  Libet  are less  treatment  Self-report,  c o n s i s t e d of homework  account  group  met  modeling,  assignments  20  and  meeting  Although social  a t l o c a t i o n s o u t s i d e the  the r e s u l t s  skills  ratings  Further,  improvement after  settings  beyond  Within  (e.g.  in social  the  s e s s i o n s , b u t was  of s o c i a l  Curran  approaches  1975).  hypotheses  recorded  to account  a n x i e t y and  socially  this  area of  s k i 11s  literature  for nondating  sex.  a deficit  Smith  interest, problems,  will and  anxious  result Sarason  from  their  s u b j e c t s , those with  interact-  (Curran,  1977)  processes?  Individuals  who  performance  the p r o b a b i l i t y  (1975) found  students  in social  Evidence  behaviour.  produced  reveals several  college  of s k i l l s .  overestimate  Abel,  training  f a u l t y c o g n i t i o n s tend to evaluate t h e i r  consequences  and  Christensen,  of these c o n c e p t s - - f a u l t y c o g n i t i v e  as o v e r l y n e g a t i v e and  stated,  Barlow,  G r e e n w a l d , 1977;  of the  i o n s w i t h members o f t h e o p p o s i t e  harbour  1977;  concommitant f e e l i n g s of discomfort  conditioned  research  the e t i o l o g y of  Curran,  that overall,  A review  each  in  to h e t e r o s e x u a l - s o c i a l a n x i e t y  Although  results.  supports  not e v a l u a t e d  is fraught with methodological  ( 1977 ) c o n c l u d e d  their  changes.  t r a i n i n g , much  understanding  beneficial  -and  skills  B r i s t o w & Young, 1977;  so many o t h e r s  of  hospital.  the realm  & Anderson,  behavioural  s k i l l s , g e n e r a l i z e d to p a t i e n t s '  Twentyman & M c F a l l , 1975;  Arkowitz  in  element:(;s)  responsible for these  treatment  treatment  Blanchard,  f o r improvement  not e v i d e n t which  been d i r e c t e d towards  evaluating  like  i t was  p a c k a g e was  behaviour  has  provide evidence  f u n c t i o n i n g a c c o r d i n g to independent  by j u d g e s ,  the treatment  h o s p i t a l were a l s o i n c l u d e d .  that  A s was  t h a t , compared  negative  previously to  non-  high anxiety perceived  the  21 same f e e d b a c k  as n e g a t i v e and  had  a greater expectancy  o t h e r s would e v a l u a t e them n e g a t i v e l y . Arkowitz rated and  (1975) demonstrated  their  performance  somewhat h i g h e r  According ization  evidence  o t h e s i s which sexual  certain  The  actions, In  (1977),  the success  for support  on  social  of systematic  defecit  the necessary  or, perhaps  subjects.  desensitprovides  of the c o n d i t i o n e d a n x i e t y  hypothesis  simply  not possess  social  simply  skill  persons  of  skills  retain  negative  states that  in their  behaviour  for heterosexual  inappropriate  t h i s case, a n x i e t y would r e s u l t  hyp-  hetero-  have been f u r t h e r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  skills  males  t o low a n x i o u s  heterosexually anxious  i n d i v i d u a l s e i t h e r - do  repetoires  lower  and  anxious  s t a t e s t h a t p r e v i o u s l y n e u t r a l cues  encounters  stimuli.  that high s o c i a l l y  as s i g n i f i c a n t l y  in dealing with  indirect  Further, Clark  i n a n x i e t y , compared  to Curran  that  as a p r o d u c t  inter-  behaviours. of unsuccessful  social interactions. In from  an e f f o r t  nondaters,  to d i s t i n g u i s h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and  lack the r e q u i s t i t e behaviours,  to e v a l u a t e the h y p o t h e s i s social  Twentyman and  skills McFall  males to e i t h e r a b e h a v i o u r a l group.  In a d d i t i o n , e f f o r t s  methodological the than  date  Twentyman and avoidance,  training  themselves  a group  31  college  previous  area of r e s e a r c h . as e n g a g d n g g  in not  s c o r e d 70 o r l e s s  of Heterosexual  s u b j e c t s were compared w i t h  nondaters  or a c o n t r o l  to a v o i d  M c F a l l ' s v a l i d a t e d measure of  daters  r e p e t o r i r e of  group  were taken  i n t h e p a s t month and  the Survey  that  (1975) a s s i g n e d  e r r o r s made i n t h i s  subjects identified one  in their  of  Half  of  more on  heterosexual  I n t e r a c t i o n (SHI).  o f m a l e s who  dated  These  frequently  22  and  scored  high  on  the  individual  sessions  coaching.  Post  SHI.  of behaviour  reported  to phone females  with  females  to a v o i d  judges  as  ulated  situations.  of shy  less anxious  and  for dates.  and  more s k i l l f u l  as a t o o l t o t r e a t h e t e r o s e x u a l  effects  m a l e s and  30  females  their dating  skills.  groups: feedback,  was  with  written  assessment revealed i m p r o v e d as c o m p a r e d  and  plus  t h a t the  r a t i n g s and  group produced  two  time  independent  that  simthe  performances  (1975) s t u d i e d  without  feedback  to l e a r n to  feedback,  date,  of  three without  Subjects (each  those  groups s i g n f i c a n t l y  measures, the  s u p e r i o r r e s u l t s to the  first  Post  c o n t r o l g r o u p on m e a s u r e s o f  behavioural  in  date  i n the  for their partner. treatment  30  increase  six dates  dates  the  on  t o one  control group.  a f t e r the  feedback  to the  more  between the  were a s s i g n e d  treatment  partner)  group provided  peer  Anderson and  females  anxiety.  groups were matched f o r the  a new  they  indicating i t s ' potential  volunteered  Subjects  or a delayed  treatment  feedback.  who  spent  concluded  social  with  six p r a c t i c e dates  the  report,  and  of p r a c t i c e dating  anxiety  in role playing  similarity  nonshy s u b j e c t s , thereby  could  when i n t e r a c t i n g ,  T h e y w e r e r a t e d by  In a d d i t i o n , i t was  Arkowitz  less  when i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h  training increased  Christensen,  and  Further,  i n t e r a c t i o n s and  in situations.  behavioural  reported  showed l e s s a u t o n o m i c a r o u s a l  were l e s s l i k e l y  three  that confident males  shy m a l e s - - t h e y  f e e l i n g 1esssanxiefcy  face-to-face,  training included  r e h e a r s a l , modeling  assessment revealed  be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f r o m when p r e p a r i n g  Skills  group which  no  self-  feedback  received  .  23 Royce and to s o c i a l l y increase  isolated  their  same s e x .  nine  control,  12  comfort  and  females  of social  or a delayed  activity  with  treatment  training, control.  report, self monitoring,  treatment  groups  to  f r i e n d s of  t o one  of  a minimal  the  four  treatment  Outcome a s s e s s e d  peer  significantly  d i f f e r e n c e s were found In a t t e m p t s  behaviours Abel,  r a t i n g s and  in initiating  and  Bristow  and  a rapist,  and  10 w h i t e  by  behav-  (facial  treated  groups..  necessary  social  r e l a t i o n s h i p , Barlow,  were being  evaluated  by t h e i r  Doubt can  10  socially  for  female  sexual  peers  be r a i s e d a s t o  adequate  as whether  males should  m a l e s who  interacting  with  revealed that the  (loudness, pitch  e x p r e s s i o n , eye  conversation  maintained  follow-ups.  (1977) compared  inadequate  groups,  be  were a l s o  homosexual, t r a n s e x u a l , p e d o p h i a l i c , or  assessment  in v o i c e q u a l i t y  Young  10 bd.ack) s o c i a l l y  s u b j e c t s were v i d e o t a p e d  assistants  t h e two  20 m a l e s n o m i n a t e d  compared with only either  and  and  month  a heterosexual  frequent daters.  (10 w h i t e  fifteen  between  m a l e s t u d e n t s who  deviations, with popular  improved  t o s p e c i f y r e l e v a n t and  Blanchard,  inadequate  All  volunteered  were a s s i g n e d  skills  t h e s e a d v a n c e m e n t s a t t h r e e and  20  who  of p r a c t i c e  measures, r e v e a l e d t h a t i n c o n t r a s t to the c o n t r o l  t h e two  No  the use  p r a c t i c e i n t e r a c t i o n s , 12 p r a c t i c e i n t e r a c t i o n s  hours  means o f s e l f ioural  social  (1978) extended  college students  54 m a l e s a n d  conditions: with  Arkowitz  and  c o n t a c t and  (initiation,  female  two  l a u g h t e r ) , and  flow, remarks of i n t e r e s t  in to female's v e r b a l i z a t i o n s ) .  research  groups  inflection),  sadist.  differed  affect form and  of respond-  24 Greenwald(1977) assessed sexual  behaviour  frequency  which  would  dating females.  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s differentiate  i n t h e p a s t m o n t h was  (1.20  dates  hetero-  high from  low  45 c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s w e r e d i v i d e d  into c a t e g o r i e s of high-frequency dates  of  daters  10.04) and  i n the past month).  Both  (average  low  number  frequency  males  and  daters  females  t h e f e m a l e s ' r o l e p l a y i n g on g l o b a l m e a s u r e s o f s o c i a l more a c c u r a t e l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d than  r a t i n g s of social  consistently more t a l k spoke  high from  anxiety.  High  more and  in a simulated role  maintained  b e t t e r eye  frequency  attractive, playing  judged skill daters  frequency daters  r a t e d as more p h y s i c a l l y  from males  low  of  were  elicited situation,  contact with  males.  Assertion Hoi 1 a n d s w o r t h investigation males  and  and  Wall  (1977 ) u n d e r t o o k  of d i f f e r e n c e s between the a s s e r t i v e behaviour  females.  A total  o f 702  subjects recruited  community c o l l e g e s , e t c . , responded of recent a s s e r t i v e behaviour, Sex  i n more a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o u r  of s p e c i f i c assertive  s i t u a t i o n s , males  than  when s t a t i n g  females  in social  s e l v e s more than males i n g and  consistently reported than  females.  initiative  situations.  Females  In as  to one's  parents.  terms  moic-e  and s u p e r v i s o r s , w i t h members  of  a s s e r t e d them-  when e x p r e s s i n g l o v e , a f f e c t i o n ,  i n e x p r e s s i n g anger  local  self-report  reported themselves  t a k i n g the  from  of  Expression Scale.  when d e a l i n g w i t h b o s s e s  o p i n i o n s and  the o p p o s i t e sex  to a 48-item  the A d u l t S e l f  differences were•compared—males  engaging  an e m p i r i c a l  compliment-  25  In an  effort  medium and  high  (1976) s t u d i e d uations  to p i n p o i n t  d i f f e r e n c e s between  a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s , S c h w a r t z and the  behaviour  o f r e f u s i n g an  subjects  the  were found  o f 101  unreasonable  subjects  assertive  in terms of t h e i r a b i l i t y  assertive  response.  Further,  low  and  more f e e l i n g s o f a n x i e t y w h i l e  although  heart  and  assertive individuals.  high  that  the  presence  ible  for unassertive Eisler,  differences uations  and  those  Test).  14  content  was  independent  two  five  categorized  ividuals  of the  nine  as  and  who  be  respons-  judges or low  role played  and  overall  sit-  a s s e r t i v e on The  two  speech  assertiveness,  the  subbasis  groups d i f f e r e d  evidenced  less compliance,  ,  30 Behavioural  s u b j e c t s were  measures--high  louder,  tended  the  s i t u a t i o n s (the  a f f e c t , and  behavioural  displayed  assertive shorter  ind-  latency  made more r e q u e s t s  changes  in behaviour  and  of time  than  assertive individuals.  d i d low  may  concluded  d i d so u n a s s e r t i v e l y .  standard  high  spoke s i g n i f i c a n t l y  of response,  medium  Gottman  (1973) i n v e s t i g a t e d  of t h e i r r o l e p l a y i n g performance. on  low,  Their behaviour--non-verbals  characteristics,  sequently  S c h w a r t z and  self-statements  Hersen  male p a t i e n t s r o l e played  by  role playing,  b e t w e e n p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s who  a s s e r t i v e l y and  rated  reported  behaviour.  Miller,  Assertiveness  an e f f e c t i v e  self-statements,  d i s t i n g u i s h between  of negative  high  assertive subjects  less positive  sit-  assertive  to c o n s t r u c t  more n e g a t i v e  r a t e d i d not  Low  as m o d e r a t e and  experiencing reported  and  Gottman  role playing  request.  t o be a s c a p a b l e  low,  to respond  for a longer  for  amount  26 In a n o t h e r  study,  Eisler,  Hersen,  Miller  (1975) were a b l e to d i f f e r e n t i a t e  high  subjects  behavioural  on  nine of a total  hospitalized  o f 12  from  p s y c h i a t r i c males r o l e played  ing the e x p r e s s i o n  of a negative  a positive assertion.  Role  Wolpe-Lazarus provided may  Blanchard  assertive  measures.  16  60  situations requir16 r e q u i r i n g  playing performance  was  rated  scores  on  s e l f - r e p o r t inventory of a s s e r t i v e n e s s .  evidence  f o r the  be a s s e r t i v e i n o n e on  familiarity  two  of the  hypothesis  that while  s i t u a t i o n , he may  t i e sex  of the  persons,  the  not  be  of the  Results  in  another. degree  one.  a s s e r t i v e p a t i e n t s spoke l o u d e r , f o r a longer  length  time,  with  evidenced  more a f f e c t , more speech  willingness  smiled  l e s s f r e q u e n t l y and,  d i s t u r b a n c e s , perhaps  of  respondent,  whether the a s s e r t i o n i s a p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e  High  the  an i n d i v i d u a l  individual, the sex  and  assertive according  m e a s u r e o f g l o b a l a s s e r t i o n and  Responses depended  and  low  a s s e r t i o n and  s u b j e c t s w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d as h i g h o r low to a b e h a v i o u r a l  and  of  unexpectedly  because of  their  to engage i n more r i s k y s i t u a t i o n s .  In c o m p a r i n g individuals,  the c o g n i t i o n s of high with  Eisler,  Frederiksen  and  Peterson  low  assertive  ( 1 9 7 8 ) had  45  male p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s r o l e p l a y e i g h t s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g assertion.  Their behaviour  of o v e r a l l a s s e r t i o n . p a t i e n t s on scored  recorded  on o v e r a l l a s s e r t i o n .  the G e n e r a l i z e d the  Expectations  perceived  and  c o g n i t i o n s of the  a s s e r t i v e n e s s were compared  lowest  to assess  The  was  Subjects  of Others  expectations  with  r a t e d on 15  highest  those  15  responded  Questionnaire,  of o t h e r s ^  a  dimension scoring who to  designed  reactions  27 t o w a r d s an i n d i v i d u a l ,  the Social A l t e r n a t i v e s Test,  to develop  a l t e r n a t i v e responses  Perception  of Respondent which requested  impressions  o f a female  to the e i g h t scenes  respondent  others  individuals did  than  the response, c h o i c e s  Less a s s e r t i v e  A discrepancy  and a c t u a l b e h a v i o u r s  The a u t h o r s  thus  individuals  does  of assertion training.  18 c o l l e g e f e m a l e s 18 o t h e r s  the general  For example, Rathus  group.  B  Subjects  Each  a n d 21  o f t h e 57 women  their  nine  of assertive tasks  talk,  rehearse  responses  g r o u p met s e v e n  times  weeks to d i s c u s s  feeling  t a l k i n g about  o p i n i o n s and eye c o n t a c t ) .  asser-  and d i s c u s s  (assertive talk,  d i s a g r e e i n g , a s k i n g why,  justifying  discussion  behaviour,  formal  of the three  m e t o n c e a week f o r s e v e n  assertion, types  i n each  (1972)  assertion training  a d e s i r e t o b e c o m e m o r e a s s e r t i v e , b u t no  ti o n t r a i n i n g groups  avoid  examined  t o one o f t h r e e  treatment  s c r e e n i n g was c o n d u c t e d .  greeting  high a s s e r t i v e  t o one o f t h r e e d . i s c u s s i o n groups  women t o a n o - c o n t r o l expressed  that  exist.  In t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 ' s , r e s e a r c h e r s effectiveness  on t h e  concluded  a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c o g n i t i o n s o f low versus  groups,  between  o f low a s s e r t i v e  cognitive assertive choices  Alternatives Test.  assigned  was n o t e d  i . e . low a s s e r t i v e p a t i e n t s behaved a s s e r t i v e l y o n l y  h a l f as o f t e n as t h e i r Social  consequences  t o s e l e c t more p a s s i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s than  high a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s .  patients,  their  Generally,  more f a v o u r a b l e  did unassertive patients.  tended  and t h e  subjects to rate  on v i d e o - t a p e .  high a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s expected from  designed  Females  talk, oneself,  in the  to discuss the nature  of fear  28 and  c h i l d r e a r i n g p r a c t i c e s which lead  dependancy. ertion  O u t c o m e was  assessed  S c a l e , Temple Fear  ratings  Survey  of r o l e p l a y i n g from  indicated  t h a t s u b j e c t s who  by m e a n s o f t h e Inventory  compared  to the c o n t r o l group, but  greater  gains  reductions  ratings  revealed  Compared  to s u b j e c t s  Following assertion  initial  those  responsible  for producing  of a combination  examination  in the  i n the  been p r e s e n t e d  discussion problems.  has  Until  i t was  been assumed  t h e r a p i s t to plan  towards o v e r a l l treatment  time,  as  behaviour.  to p l a y a p r i n c i p l e  1  s t e p s w h i c h can  this  unclear  assertive  a c q u i s i t i o n of a s s e r t i v e behaviour.  i n t o small  are  as a p r o g r a m c o n s i s t i n g  elements f a c i l i t i a t e d  rehearsal  the  to  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  e f f e c t i v e responses.  a t h e r a p i s t to shape c l i e n t s b e h a v i o u r s , thus  This enables  Behavioural  r a p i d l y s h i f t e d t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n  (1975) s t a t e s t h a t r o l e p l a y i n g i n simulated  behaviours  significantly  related  of the  of numerous elements y e t  to which of these  other  components of a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g which  t r a i n i n g had  Behaviour  to the TFSI.  for subjects  t r a i n i n g , research  identifying  assertion  in the  reported  more K n o w l e d g e o f f e a r s and the  compared  for assertion training subjects  be r a t e d m o r e a s s e r t i v e l y a n d group to possess  behavioural  behaviour,  insignificantly,  in fear according  trends  Ass-  Results  in assertive  conditions, assertion training subjects  greater  role  ( T F S I ) , and  and  received assertion training  significantly  two  Rathus  assertion situations.  reported  to the d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p .  to f e e l i n g s of g u i l t  Flowers  situations breaking  allows down  be e a s i l y l e a r n e d .  successive  approximations  o b j e c t i v e s . ] Rimm, S n y d e r ,  Depue,  these  29 Haanstad  and Armstrong  of behaviour  (1976) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s  r e h e a r s a l compared with  an a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g  package which  included r e h e a r s a l , feedback,  inforcement.  S u b j e c t s w e r e 38 m a l e s ,  by n e w p a p e r a d v e r t i s e m e n t , through reader  i s reminded  course.  Curran  and G i l b e r t  s t u d y were a s s i g n e d training  Subjects  t o one o f f o u r treatment with  v e r b a l i z a t i o n , rehearsal with  without  v e r b a l i z a t i o n . O u t c o m e was a s s e s s e d  r a t i n g s o f f o u r s i t u a t i o n s which  skin conductance resulted those  and blood  i n marked  to pre-assessment,  training  rated themselves  were o b t a i n e d  training  alone d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  on p o s t a s s e s s m e n t  as more  McFall  while improve.  effective  f o r those i n  E f f e c t s o f v e r b a l i z a t i o n were  d a t a w e r e u n c l e a r a n d no s i g n i f i c a n t  on b l o o d  In e x a m i n i n g  female  Assertion  situation,  p i a y i n g , w h i 1 e no d i f f e r e n c e was f o u n d  conductance  feedback,  playing  i n random  s u b j e c t s who r e c e i v e d a s s e r t i o n  the r e h e a r s a l alone group. skin  by b e h a v i o u r a l  i m p r o v e m e n t on t h e o b j e c t i v e m e a s u r e s  Compared  role  training  verba 1 i zatiionaaridrrehearsal  role  pressure.  i n t h e p r a c t i c e group  during  conditions:  were n o t p r e s e n t e d  r a t i n g s f o l l o w i n g each  recruiting  i n the present  verbalization,-'assertion  without  order, self  Once a g a i n , t h e  (1977) a g a i n s t  by t h e s e means f o r one s t u d y .  assertion  10 o f whom w e r e r e c r u i t e d  o f t h e c a u t i o n s o f Royce and A r k o w i t z  (1977) and L i t t l e , subjects  and r e -  28 o f whom w e r e r e c r u i t e d  the remaining  an i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y  modeling  ; ::  pressure  the role and Marston  negligible,  results  measures.  of behaviour  rehearsal with  (1970) assigned  nonassertive college students  and without  18 m a l e a n d 24  who v o l u n t e e r e d  to learn to  30  improve  their  assertion skills  to one  behaviour  rehearsal with feedback,  feedback,  placebo  no t r e a t m e n t over  two  and  Overall,  t h e r e was  also performed  i c a n t l y ) on a two posed  of response  behaviour (who  t o one  two  on t h e CRI  the  hour  sessions  by b e h a v i o u r a l , to the  two  rehearsal conditions assertion.  of a trend f o r behaviour rehearsal  most a s s e r t i v e l y  Subjects  receiving  (although not call  (1977) however, found  feedback  d i d n o t add  from  signif-  a  confederate  u n a s s e r t i v e on  of three treatment  t h a t the  and  conditions.  the authors  concluded  that response  to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the behaviour  Resolution  feedback  Self-report,  b e h a v i o u r a l m e a s u r e s r e v e a l e d no  and  their  o n l y two  results.  after  treatment.  feedback  did  not  r e h e a r s a l , they did  F u r t h e r , no c o n t r o l g r o u p  sessions of training  scores  significant  acknowledge t h a t s e v e r a l aspects of the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g handicap  males  Each c o n d i t i o n  with or without  of the three groups  of  eight  the C o n f l i c t  knowledge or r e c o r d i n g .  between any  add-  to the component  T h e y a s s i g n e d 25 f e m a l e s  sessions of t r a i n i n g  and  differences  add  (except  Compared  superior results.  Stocker  with or without  Although  measures.  week f o l l o w - u p t e l e p h o n e  rehearsal.  Inventory)  and  assessed  greater improvementtin  s c o r e d as m o d e r a t e l y  included  each  without  as a m a g a z i n e s a l e s p e r s o n .  M e l n i c k and ition  O u t c o m e was  evidence  to produce  rehearsal  c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r one  s u b j e c t s i n the behaviour  significantly  feedback  feedback  who  of which  behaviour  no t r e a t m e n t ,  physiological  groups,  evidenced  and  group)  to t h r e e weeks.  self-report control  t h e r a p y and  of four c o n d i t i o n s :  was  did  included  were p r o v i d e d f o r s u b j e c t s .  31 Galassi  and G a l a s s i (1976) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e h y p o t h e s i s  t h a t t h e e f f e c t s o f r o l e p l a y i n g v a r y w i t h mode o f s t i m u l u s presentation responses  (tape vs. l i v e  required  p r e s e n t a t i o n ) and t h e number o f  ( s i n g l e v s . m u l t i p l e ) from (who s c o r e d  subjects.  assigned  48 c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s  standard  d e v i a t i o n b e l o w t h e mean on t h e C o l l e g e S e l f  approximately  Scale)  to one o f f o u r t r e a t m e n t  groups:  taped,  multiple-stimulus; live,  single-stimulus; live,  stimulus.  S u b j e c t s . i n each  responding  e i t h e r once, or f i v e  S i t u a t i o n s were r o l e p l a y e d by a u d i o t a p e with  post  recorder.  assessment  taped,  group r o l e played to s i x times  with  on b e h a v i o u r a l  confederate  performance  was  indicated that variations i n the role playing  with  a live  stimulus  role  played  with  a taped  only once, responded who r e s p o n d e d  between t h e groups Various Rosenthal and  and  and Reese  treatment  t h o s e ' who  responded thahnthbsee  differences resulted  component  a n d on a s h o r t e n e d  overt modeling  have been  researched.  the effectiveness of covert  36 f e m a l e  Assertive Questionnaire,  conditions:  played  content.  (1976) compared  by t e l e p h o n e  Lazarus  l e n g t h o f time  o f the modeling  procedures..  procedure  who r o l e  a n d s u b j e c t s who  No s i g n i f i c a n t  on a s s e r t i v e  aspects  overt modeling  screened  f o r a longer  compared  anxiety.  g r e a t e r a n x i e t y than  stimulus  several times.  of experienced  responses—those  experienced  or  ratings of assertive  Results  subjects' nonverbal  multiple-  per s i t u a t i o n .  response  affect  Expression  single-stimulus;  intent,  did  l e n g t h , and l e v e l  one  s i xs i t u a t i o n s ,  either a live  Pre-assessment  They  college  volunteers  v e r s i o n o f t h e Wolpe  were a s s i g n e d working  t o one o f t h r e e  through  a  standard  32 hierarchy  (derived  situations standard  from the  in terms of d i f f i c u l t y ;  hierarchy;  and  developed  by  hierarchy  Interpersonal  covert the  covert modeling with  modeling with  the  within  each c o n d i t i o n were encouraged modeled  groups, nine  modeling  three  of four  treatment  behaviour  would  In o r d e r  the  subjects'  the  three  sessions.  natural  groups  in general, the  a 2;<x  (imagining  t h e m s e l v e s ) and  be  o f new  t o be  to study  a s i n g l e model  model  vs.  reinforcement  to these  the  modeling, e f f e c t s of  several  models  (imagining no  .control  f e m a l e s and  responded  also employed.  t o p o s t e r s .and  31  n e w s p a p e r s and  ments o f f e r i n g f r e e a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . four on  consequences). 21  to the  control  improved  behavioural  group, subjects  significantly  Treatment  received  in assertion.  covert  Although  model  the  that m u l t i p l e models produced  concluded  i m p r o v e m e n t s on  Kazdin number assert  AA  included Post  were somewhat  s e l f - r e p o r t measures, while  assessment compared  modeling  results  number o f m o d e l s and author  reinforcement  measures,  males  measures i n d i c a t e d that who  in  television advertise-  i n d i v i d u a l sessionsoov.eraatfcwowweekpperrdidd.  s e l f - r e p o r t and  means  favourable  consequences f o l l o w i n g a s s e r t i o n vs. g r o u p was  by  equally effective.  e f f e c t s of covert  2 design  individually  measures taken  According  proved  subjects  For a l l  assessed  behavioural  to  situations  appropriate.  O u t c o m e was  environment.  While evaluating (1976) employed  to t h i n k  s i t u a t i o n s were p r e s e n t e d  s e i l f - r e p o r t m e a s u r e s and  of models  the  e f f e c t s of t r a n s f e r of t r a i n i n g , h a l f of the  in which the  of  a self-tai1ored  individual subject.  assess  over  Behaviour Test)  regarding mixed,  greater  imagining  favourable.  33 c o n s e q u e n c e s e f f e c t e d m o r e c h a n g e on measures. playing  Treatment  effects  self-report  seven  and  Melnick  in training  volunteered  who  CRI,  were a s s i g n e d  to one  with  reinforcement  ( i m a g i n i n g a model  evidenced  Subjects  15 s i t u a t i o n s ,  i n the  evidence  improved supported  significant)  twice  telephone  assertively with  reply  did not a no  gain  treatment  c o n d i t i o n s t r a i n e d on  in three one-hour  sessions  i n a l l but  treatment  t h e no  modeling  on  and  post assessment  measures  (this  result  on m e a s u r e s o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , a l t h o u g h on  a f o u r month  follow-up  call.  students  Kennedy  without  (1973) examined  reinforcement.  were a s s i g n e d  t o one  plus reinforcement, modeling therapy  were seen  modeling  the s u p e r i o r i t y of the c o v e r t  and  w i t h and  modeling  the  Further  Y o u n g , Rimm a n d modeling  become  a s s e r t i v e behaviour.  these d i f f e r e n c e s were not a p p a r e n t  placebo  behaving  c o n d i t i o n and  Subjects  in their  reply training  college  covert  covert modeling  treatment  presented  a t h r e e week p e r i o d .  condition  was  each  a placebo  and  m o d e r a t e u n a s s e r t i o n on  ( i m a g i n a t i o n o f an a s s e r t i v e m o d e l who  condition.  with  24 f e m a l e  to l e a r n to  of four c o n d i t i o n s :  r e i n f o r c e d by c o m p l i a n c e ) ,  immediate compliance),  over  a t a f o u r month  assertion skills.  m a l e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s who  training  role  (1977 ) a l s o s t u d i e d v a r i a n t s  more a s s e r t i v e and  being  playing  evaluation.  N i e t z e l , Martorano covert modeling  role  d i d g e n e r a l i z e to untrained  s i t u a t i o n s - - t h e s e were m a i n t a i n e d  follow-up  of  the behaviour  and  a no  individually  treatment  f o r two  40  the e f f e c t s volunteer  of female  of four c o n d i t i o n s : without  reinforcement,  c o n t r o l group.  half-hour treatment  Subjects sessions,  34 which focused  on  six training  measures included  behavioural  simulated  situations,  situation  and  not  add  the  addition  did  In a d d i t i o n single  several (e.g.  not to  of  evidence studying  1971;  identifying  have been  the  assigned  subjects  instructions,  t o one  modeling  practice-control. studied be  50  readily  assessed  of plus  Miller,  ingredients  be  noted  McFall  results  to o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n s . seven pre  (duration  with  of  this  speech, compliance content, requests for  five role  groups e x c e p t the  playing  situations.  cannot  on  was nonverbal  loudness of  r e s p o n s e s to  duration  and  ratings  assertiveness)  authors  Outcome  post verbal  looking,  and  study  behavioural  overall  of  modeling,  because the  generalized  b e h a v i o u r , a f f e c t and  training,  test-retest  patients,  &  (1973),  in assertion  that  of  1974).  Pinkston  instructions,  of  studies  five treatment conditions:  It should  comparing  effects.  of variants  several  psychiatric  by  Subjects'  F l o w e r s & G u e r r a , 1974;  effective  didn  relative efficacy  focus of  E i s l e r , H e r s e n and  the  control  component  effectiveness the  and  demonstrated  s i g n i f i c a n t treatment the  each  two  treatment.  H e r s e n , E i s l e r , M i l l e r , J o h n s o n and in  the  reinforcement  modeling  in  Scale  results  in r e l a t i o n to  the  the  T u r n e r & Adams, 1977;  Lillesand,  playing  following  B r i e f l y , the  components of a s s e r t i o n ,  components  from r o l e  outcome  Wolpe-Lazarus Assertive  of modeling  s i g n i f i c a n t l y to  self-reports  the  the  Principal  self ratings  Inventory.  effectiveness  g r o u p s , but  ratings  subjects'  s c o r e s on  Lawrence A s s e r t i v e the  situations.  of  reply, new  subjects'  Subjects  in a l l  t e s t - r e t e s t were i n d i v i d u a l l y exposed  to  35 the f i v e in  scenes,  s i x times  the modeling,  groups  was  modeling  four separate  trials  r e v e a l e d that the modeling  equal  on  five  In d e t e r m i n i n g  of the seven  feedback  per  scene.  alone  specified  contact, voice loudness, behaviour. subject  12  five  standard  times,  components.  to f a c i l i t a t e  Hersen  the t a r g e t behaviours  speech  the  rehearsal  assertiveness  d u r a t i o n and  played  therapist provided  behaviours  after  untrained  situations.  The  maintenance  in the s u b j e c t s ' behaviours followed similar  up  patient's  life  Li11esand  t o one  the  patient  was  increase in assertive the  bouts  of  alcoholi  the e f f e c t s  of  rehearsal with modeling  in  (1971) compared  with  s c o r e d a s u n a s s e r t i v e on  coaching,  A  as  of three treatment  and  an  t o be c o m p l i c a t e d  overt behaviour  s t u d e n t s who  with modeling coaching  target  p o s i t i v e changes  a t f o l l o w - u p were u n f a v o u r a b l e  continued  and  covert versus  assigned  program produced  yet results  McFall  college  the  g e n e r a l i z e d to  of these  were e v i d e n t as  change  f o r nine months i n the n a t u r a l environment.  subsequent  behaviour,  effects  to  i n s t r u c t i o n s and  In a d d i t i o n t o s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e s i n t h e treatment  eye  by  feedback.  training,  and  of  requests  s i t u a t i o n s were r o l e  and  Post  or i n s t r u c t i o n s  i n a 28 y e a r o l d p s y c h i a t r i c i n p a t i e n t , E i s l e r , (1974) f i r s t  Subjects  plus i n s t r u c t i o n s  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of behaviour  i n s t r u c t i o n s and  Miller  period.  plus i n s t r u c t i o n s group  to or s u p e r i o r to the modeling  alone group  with  i n a t h r e e day  i n s t r u c t i o n s and  were a l l o w e d  assessment  each,  t h e CRI  33  were  conditions; overt rehearsal  covert rehearsal with modeling  or assessment-placebo  control.  A l l s u b j e c t s were  and .  36 s e e n : t w i c e , i n two w e e k s . exposure to nine Overt  subjects  response, on  all  situations requiring refusal of  rehearsed  aloud  and heard  covert  subjects  imagined  while  t h e i r response  in both  without  behaviour  rehearsal  Turner three  developing  that covert  coaching  plus  control.  almost  playing.  rehearsal,  without possible  evaluation.  rehearsal  and m o d e l i n g )  female  college students Assertiveness  treatment  rehearsal, coaching behaviour  included  behavioural  conditions:  plus  rehearsal  In a d d i t i o n t o s c o r e s  who  behaviour  plus  modeling  on t h e CRI a n d  ratings of subjects'  t o s i x r o l e p l a y i n g s i t u a t i o n s ( t w o r e f u s a l , two  investigatory,  and two c o m m e n d a t o r y ) .  improved  on e y e c o n t a c t ,  content  subjects  i n the coaching  plus  i m p r o v e d most on v o i c e coaching  on  the r e l a t i v e effects of  t o one o f f o u r  behaviour  assessment  responding  Subjects  rehearsal  on t h e CRI a n d R a t h u s  plus modeling,  placebo  behaviour  32 u n a s s e r t i v e  were a s s i g n e d  rehearsal  and r e f l e c t e d  of i t .  by e x t e r n a l  8  a s s e r t i o n i n r e f u s a l , i n v e s t i g a t o r y a n d commend-  as u n a s s e r t i v e  Inventory,  RAS,  a playback  (1977) examined  (coaching,  situations.  scored  responding  measures of r o l e  i s protected  and Adams  components  atory  a replay of their  i s a t l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as o v e r t  because the subject  requests.  groups g r e a t l y improved  and L i l l e s a n d c o n c l u d e d  playback  and  hearing  s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o u r a l  McFall  on  Each s e s s i o n c o n s i s t e d o f s u b j e c t s '  plus  behavioural  rehearsal  measures.  A l l three  groups  and o v e r a l l a s s e r t i o n and  rehearsal  inflection. plus modeling A l l three  treatment  plus modeling  In g e n e r a l , group  treatment  group  subjects  i n the  i m p r o v e d most on t h e groups  improved  on  37 t h e RAS  and  rehearsal group  CRI  and  t h e r e was  plus modeling  to improve  a trend f o r the coaching  group  more.  The  and  the c o a c h i n g  authors  behaviour. behaviour ients  proved  i n the t r a i n i n g In a s e r i e s  assessed  add  of  as  assertiveci  concluded  that coaching  t o be t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e  plus  ingred-  program.  o f f o u r s t u d i e s , M c F a l l and  Twentyman  the components of r e h e a r s a l , modeling  in f o s t e r i n g  modeling  to treatment,  in their deficits  In summary, t h e a u t h o r s rehearsal  plus rehearsal  s p e c u l a t e d t h a t the  component alone d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y s u b j e c t s were not s e v e r e  plus  assertive behaviour.  and  (1973)  coaching  B e h a v i o u r a l and  self-report  measures c o n s i s t e n t l y r e v e a l e d the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i n g effects  o f r e h e a r s a l and  coaching.  No d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d  between c o v e r t or o v e r t r e h e a r s a l or a combination In s p i t e o f t h e u s e vs. abrupt)  and  audiovisual), effects  of d i f f e r e n t  types of models  the component of modeling  components.  The  Adams ( 1 9 7 7 ) t h a t t h e  of modeling  be m o r e e f f e c t i v e  may,  in fact,  have d e f i n i t e  skill  to e f f e c t i v e  models.  conditions.  deficits  Fodor  behaviour  and  clinic,  plus behaviour  rehearsal plus rational raising  vs.  to  the  authors  conc-  component  for subjects  little  prior  three different  S u b j e c t s , 64 u n a s s e r t i v e f e m a l e s  modeling  consciousness  have had  (1977) compared  an o u t p a t i e n t p s y c h o t h e r a p y groups:  (tactful  d i d n o t add  c l u d e d , as d i d T u r n e r and  and  these.  method of s t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n ( a u d i o  of the other treatment  Wolfe  of  who  exposure  treatment  recruited  through  were a s s i g n e d t o one  r e h e a r s a l , modeling emotive  or a c o n t r o l group.  therapy  of  four  plus  (RET),  Treatment  consisted  38 o f two, t w o - h o u r g r o u p two  groups  improved  s e s s i o n s i n o n e week.  significantly  Subjects i n the f i r s t  on t h e two b e h a v i o u r a l  of a s s e r t i v e content and para 1 i n g u i s t i c  factors (eig. firmness  of v o i c e , a p p r o p r i a t e a f f e c t ) and these e f f e c t s generalized  to untrained situations  o f RET s e r v e d o n l y t o r e d u c e by t h e SAD a n d F N E s c a l e s . significantly  feelings  role  situational  o f treatment  played.  Thea d d i t i o n  a n x i e t y , as assessed  Consciousness  o n l y on t h e p a r a l i n g u i s t i c  but d i d n o t a f f e c t  measures  raising  improved  behavioural  measures  subjects' assertive content or subjective  of anxiety.  Critique-As w i t h mostlaBeas' of&rresearjch ,'ttherarea o f s o c i a l  anxiety  !  and  e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s n o twithout  comings  (see Table  1).  i t smethodological  Several o f these concerns  the s e l e c t i o n  o f subjects f o r study.  is an obvious  imbalance  experiment. 25 f e m a l e s 18 m a l e s (1977),  and e i g h t males;  a n d 24 f e m a l e s ;  s e p a r a t e l y f o r males  McFall and Marston  males.  and females,  example  w i t h i n an  (1977) f o r example  and N i e t z e l , Martorano  and seven  l i e within  glaring  between male and females  Melnick and Stocker  24 f e m a l e s  One s u c h  short-  employed  (1970)  used  and Melnick  As t h e d a t a was n o t a n a l y z e d  a possible confounding  v a r i a b l e may have a . f f e c t e d t h e r e s u l t s . Another  issue concerns  Specifically,  this  refers  the matter  t o employing  recruited  from  v a r i o u s s o u r c e s , such  referrals  from  treatment  Schinke  of subject  selection.  s u b j e c t s who h a v e  been  as newpaper ads, p o s t e r s ,  agencies and c o l l e g e students (e.g.  & R o s e , 1 9 7 6 ; Rimm, D e p u e , H a a n s t a d  As w a s p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d ,  & Armstrong,  Royce and A r k o w i t z  1976).  (1977) do c a u t i o n  39 against for  t h i s p r a c t i c e because of i t s p o s s i b l e  producing  diverse results.  In r e v i e w i n g the v a r i o u s  implications  the l i t e r a t u r e ,  subject populations  as t h i s f a c t o r w i l l  obviously  i t i s wise to bear  used  i n t h i s area  a f f e c t the extent  of research,  to which one  may g e n e r a l i z e r e s u l t s b e y o n d  the experiment  investigating  i t appears that anxious  students 1970;  social  anxiety,  a r e most f r e q u e n t l y employed  1975) while  social  skills  m o s t p a r t , on h e t e r o s e x u a l l y Twentyman & M c F a l l , ensen, Arkowitz (e.g.  a t hand.  (Hedquist  Rehm & M a r s t o n , 1 9 6 8 ; S m i t h & S a r a s o n ,  Arkowitz,  1975; Curran,  & Anderson,  Jaffe & Carlson,  Hersen & Turner, & Winter,  have t r a d i t i o n a l l y college  students  Melnick  & Stocker,  & McFall,  1'976 ; B e l l a c k ,  1975; M a r z i l l i e r assertion  consisted of the analogue population of  ( e . g . Rathus  1972; McFall  & Marston, 1970;  1977; G a l a s s i & G a l a s s i , 1976;  1973)  and p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s  1973; E i s l e r ,  Eisler,  & Peterson,  Frederiksen  similar lines, instruments  used  Kazdin,  1 9 7 7 ; Y o u n g , Rimm & K e n n e d y ,  (e.g.Hersen, E i s l e r ,  Johnson & Pinkston,  criteria  populations  selected f o r researching  N i e t z e l , Martorano & Melnick,  screening  f o rthe  college populations (e.g.  1975) and p s y c h i a t r i c  1976;  Along  1975; Clark &  1976 ; E d e l s t e i n & E i s l e r ,  Subjects  college  1977; Greenwald, 1977; C h r i s t -  1976; Goldsmith  1978).  In  & Weinhold,  training focuses,  anxious  i n mind  Hersen  & M i l l e r , 1974;  1978; E i s l e r ,  i t should as well  be n o t e d  Miller that  as t h e d i v e r s e  applied to s e l e c t subjects.  Miller,  & Hersen,  various screening  Some i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( e . g .  Y o u n g , Rimm & K e n n e d y , 1 9 7 3 ; Rimm, S n y d e r , D e p u e ,  Haanstad  & A r m s t r o n g , 1 9 7 6 ) h o w e v e r e m p l o y e d no s c r e e n i n g  instruments  to a i d i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e i r s u b j e c t s .  1973).  40 Although such  numerous models of c o n t r o l groups  as w a i t i n g  Kellett,  1976;  list  c o n t r o l s (e.g. M a r z i l l i e r ,  Christensen, Arkowitz  pseudotherapy  ( e . g . Rehm & M a r s t o n ,  (e.g. S c h i n k e S Snyder, 1977;  Kazdin,  experimental  & M c F a l l , 1975;  & Fodor,  1 9 6 8 ) , and  Turner  & Lillesand,  1977),  nondirective  behavioural  discussion  R o s e , 1 9 7 6 ) , some i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( e . g .  Depue, Haanstad 1976)  S Armstrong,  failed  design.  1976;  to i n c l u d e any  Under these  &  1975),  controls (e.g., McFall  1971), c o n s c i o u s n e s s - r a i s i n g (Wolfe  employed  Lambert  & Anderson,  c o n t r o l s (e.g. Goldsmith  & Adams, 1977), assessment  therapy  were  Melnick  Rimm,  &  Stocker,  c o n t r o l group i n  circumstances  one  is  their  unclear  1  as to t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e  treatment  m e t h o d empl e y e d — t r e a t -  ment i n such  represent  a strong  placebo"  c a s e s , may  a l s o be  Melnick  & Stocker,  1977;  studies  q u a l i f y as  treatment  (McFall & L i l l e s a n d ,  Y o u n g , Rimm & K e n n e d y 1 9 7 3 )  consisted merely  expectations  o f two  sessions  "treatment",  be r e g a r d i n g  how  Should  and,  (generally such  always e x p l i c i t  consisted  brief  this  treatment  1 9 7 7 ) , and  i n s t a t i n g p r e c i s e l y what  o f — f a c t s sometimes ommitted  l e n g t h of each  treatment  session  (e.g. Melnick  & E i s i e r , 1976 ) .  sessions  our will  Investigators  treatment  i n c l u d e such  the a c t u a l number o f t r e a t m e n t  >.(;e.g. Ed e l s t e i n  lasting  i f so, what s h o u l d  influential  1971;  where  in f o s t e r i n g assertion in unassertive i n d i v i d u a l s ?  were not  as  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  h a l f hour))of a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g .  training  be  regarding  raised in three  "treatment" one  "attention  effect.  Such doubts may  simply  &  matters Stocker, employed  41 When a t t e m p t i n g treatment training such  and of  program, i n i t i a l  Schinke  Eisler, their  the r e l a t i v e  components w i t h i n a s k i l l  c o n c l u s i o n s can  design.  to assess  1976,  and  care  should  be d r a w n f r o m R o s e , 1976;  were unable  training  the  be  efficacy o r an  taken  several  assertiveness  to ensure  particular  S h e p h e r d , 1978;  of  that  experimental and  Edelstein  to a s c e r t a i n which components  programs were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b e h a v i o u r a l  change.  ;  43l Summary o f R e l e v a n t  Research  -Subjects Sex Selection  Controls (Conditions or S u b j e c t s )  Dependent Measures  Transfer Training  Self-Report  Di r e c t l y Assessed  of  Fol1ow-Up  Authors  Primary Therapy (or Topic of Interest)  Source  Hedqu i s t Wei n h o l d (1980)  S o c i a l Learning vs. Behavi oural Rehearsal  University  M&F  Anxious & S o c i a l l y U n a s s e r t i v e (a ss ^ e s s e d by q u e s t i o n naire)  Discussing Interpersonal Behaviours & Processes  Rehm & E. M a r s t o n (1968)  Increasing Positive SelfRei nforcement  University  M  Anxious i n Social Situations (selfReport)  A. D i s c u s s i o n S e l f - R e p o r t Not Group of Anxiety & B. W o r k i n g o n B e h a v i o u r ; T h e i r Own Behavioural  o Smith & °° S a r a s o n (1975)  E v a l u a t i o n o f Negative Feedback  University  S o c i a l l y Anxious ( a s s e s s e d by questi onnai re)  S o c i a l l y NonAnxious Individuals  A n x i e t y r e : Not A p p l i c a b l e Negative " Evaluations ; also Expectations  Not Applicable  Clark & Arkowi t z (1975)  S e l f - E v a l u a t i on o f Interpersonal Performance  University  S o c i a l l y Anxious Volunteers  S o c i a l l y Non- R a t i n g s (by Not A p p l i c a b l e Anxious Males Subjects & Judges) of S o c i a l Anxiety & Skills  Not Applicable  Wright (1976)  Social Skills T r a i n i n g Program vs. Systematic Desensitization  University  M&F  Several Questionnaires, Screening Interview, Frequency o f V e r b a l izations  No T r e a t m e n t Control  = White I ^ Berger - (1976)  Behaviour Rehearsal Plus Social Learning Theory  Referred M&F by S t u d e n t Mental Health Clinic  R e f e r r e d as Socially Incompetent  Read M a t e r i a l S e l f - R e p o r t re: Social Skills & Assertion  •r- S c h i n k e & % Rose (1976)  Behaviour Rehearsal & Contingency C o n t r a c t i ng  Community . Ads & R e f e r r a l s from Treatmen t Agencies  Volunteers for Social Skills Training  Behavioural Discussion  Self-Report Not & Behavioural  oo  Modeling vs. Instructions  Chronic M Psychi atri c Patients 1 Ward  Described Social  Attention Placebo  Behavi oural  0)  Jaffe & Carlson (1976)  M&F  M&F  as  Behavioural  Assessed  Sel f-Report a t 6 Weeks  Sel f-Report a t 7-9 months  Di r e c t l y Assessed  None  A s s e s s e d by Means o f S e l f • Report  Sel f-Report a t 3 Month  Assessed  Directly Assessed  Sel f-Report & Behavioural a t 3 Months None  A3  Authors  Primary Therapy (or Topic of Interest)  Edelstei n Eisler (1976)  Modeling vs struction & Feedback  Bel l a c k , Hersen & Turner (1976)  Source  Subjects Sex Selection  Controls (Conditions or S u b j e c t s )  Dependent Measures  Multiple-Base-Behavioural l i n e Design  1 Schizophrenic patient  D e s c r i b e d as having Poor Social Functioni ng  I n s t r u c t i o n s , Feedback & Modeling  M&F 3 Chronic Schi zophreni c Pati ents  D e s c r i b e d as E v i - M u l t i p l e - B a s e dencing Gross Line Design I n t e r p e r s o n a l Response D e f i c i t s  Goldsmith McFal1 (1975)  Behaviour Rehearsal Modeling, Coaching & Feedback  Psychi a t r i c Pati ents  A l l P a t i e n t s on Ward  Pseudotherapy Self-Report Behavi oural Assessment Controls  Ma r z i 1 1 i e r . Lambert & = Kellett a (1976) sMarzi11i er ^. & W i n t e r ^ (1978)  Systematic Desensiti z a t i o n vs. Social Skills Training Program  Psychi atri c Outpati ents  M&F  Evidence of Social D i f f i c u l t i e s I n t e r v i ew  Wa i t i n g L i s t Control  Instructions, Relaxation Training & Feedback  Psychi atri c Outpatients  M&F  Referred for Soci al S k i l l s Training  Acute & C h r o n i c Psyc h i a t r i c Inpatients  M&F  Displayed Mini ma1 Social Interaction  M&F  rd  O O  In-  Learning  Behavioural  Transfer of Training  Fol1ow-Up  None Assessed G e n e r a l i za t i on t o other situations only A s s e s s e d Gen- B e h a v i oural eralization 8 - 1 0 weeks Only Assessed Self-Report I n d i r e c t l y ; & & BehavG e n e r a l i z a t i on i o u r a l Assessed a t 3 Months Assessed by Means of Self-Report  Sel f-Report a t 6 Months  Controlled Behavioural Wi t h i n - S u b j e c t D e s i gns  None  Sel f-Report a t 6 Months  Psycotherapy  Behavioural  Di r e c t l y Assessed  None  S c o r e d as D e p r e s - N o n - D e p r e s s e d s e d on 2 Q u e s t i o n • P s y c h i a t r i c n a ire s i Interview Patients & Normals  Behavi oural  Di rectly Assessed  None  Behavioural Self-Report  G u t r i de, Goldstein & Hunter (1973)  Structured Theory  Li bet & . Lewi nsohn (1973)  Uni v e r s i t y Problem S o l v i n g , Role P l a y i n g , S k i l l s Practice, etc.  Shepherd (1978)  Modeling, Reinforcement & Feedback  Chronic Patients in Psyc hi a t r i c Day H o s p i t a l  M&F  S e l e c t e d f o r H e l p No T r e a t m e n t Control with Social Di f f i c u l t i es  Behavioural  Assessed Generalization Only  None  Twentyman & McFall (1975)  Behaviour & Modeling C o a c h i ng  Un i v e r s i t y  M  Confident Questionnaire Daters P l u s not more Than 1 Date/Month  Behavioural, Self-Report, Phys io l o g i c a l  Assessed by Means o f Self-Report  Sel f-Report a t 6 Months  Chri stensen Arkowitz & Anderson (1975)  Practice Dating & Feedback vs. Without Feedback  Uni v e r s i t y  M&F  Delayed Treatment Control  Behavioural , Self-Report, Phys i o l o g i c a l  Assessed by Means of Self=Report  Sel f-Report a t 3 Montht  Rehearsal &  Volunteers  -44  CD E i —  rd • i -  O O 00  E •!rd  SI—  Primary Therapy (or Topic of Interest)  Royce & Arkowi tz (1978)  Practice Inter Inter- University actions & Skills Training vs. Without  Bar!ow, Abel , Bl a n c h a r d , Bristow & Young (1977)  Specify Behaviours Necessary to I n i t iate a Heterosexual R e l a t i ons h i p  Uni v e r s i t y  Greenwa1d (1977)  D i f f e r e n t i a t e Betw e e n H i g h & Low Frequency Dating Females  Un ive r s i ty  to 1/1 <  F  Dependent Measures  Transfer of Training  Fol1ow-Up  V o l u n t e e r e d to Increase Social Comfort  Delayed T r e a t - Behavi oural ment & M i n i m a l S e l f - R e p o r t Peer Rating Treatment Controls  A s s e s s e d by Means o f Self-Report  Self-Report a t 3 & 15 Months  S o c i a l l y Inadequate Males With Sexual Deviations  Males Nominat- Behavioural ed as p o p u l a r Qualities & Frequent :-Rated.: Daters  Not Applicable  Not Applicable  Frequent Daters (Mean o f 10.04 Dates per Month)  Infrequent D a t e r s (1.20 Dates in Past Month)  Behavioural Q ua 1 it ie s Rated  Not Appli cable  Not Appli cable  M&F  A s s e s s e d by 1 Questionnaire  Not Applicable  Self-Report  Not Appli cable  Not Applicable  To S t u d y D i f f e r e n ces Between Asse r t i v e & Unasse r t i v e M&F  University  M&F  A s s e s s e d by 1 Questionnaire  H i g h v s . Low A s s e r t i ve Subjects  Behavioural Not Self-Report Applicable Physiological  Not Appli cable  Eisler, Miller & Hersen (1973)  Differences ween H i g h & A s s e r t i ve Individuals  Psychiatric Pati ents  M  S u b j e c t s were C a t e g o r i zed A c c o r d i n g to Role P l a y i n g Performance  H i g h v s Low A s s e r t i ve Subjects  Behavioural  Not Applicable  Not Applicable  Eisler, Frederiksen Peterson (1978)  C o g n i t i o n s of High v s . Low A s s e r t i v e Individuals  Psychiatric Patients  M  Subjects Categorized According to Role P l a y i n g Performance  H i g h v s Low Assertives  Not Cogni t i ons A s s e s s e d by A p p l i c a b l e Means o f 3 Questionnaires  Not Applicable  Rathus (1972)  Assertion Training (Included 9 Assertion Tasks)  University  F  Subjects Express e d D e s i r e t o Become more A s s e r tive  Discussion G r o u p s , No Treatment Control  Behavioural Not A s s e s s e d & Self-Report  None  V o l u n t e e r e d - No Further Screening  Behavi oural Rehearsal Only  Behavioural Not A s s e s s e d & Self-Report & Physiological  None  Schwartz Gottman (1976 )  s-  M&F  Controls (Conditions or S u b j e c t s )  Local Communi t y Colleges Universities  Hoi 1 a n d s w o r t h & W a l l (.1977 )  4->  Source  Authors  Subjects Sex Selection  &  D i f f e r e n c e s Between A s s e r t i v e B e h a v i o u r o f M&F  BetLow  Rimm S n y d e r , B e h a v i o u r R e h e a r s a l , Depue, Haan- F e e d b a c k , M o d e l i n g & s t a d , & Arm- Rei n f o r c e m e n t strong (1976)  Introductory M Psychology C l a s s & Newsp a p e r Ads  AS  V o l u n t e e r e d to Become A s s e r t i v e  Placebo Therapy, No T r e a tmen t  Behavioural See & Self-Report & P h y s i o l og-r i ca 1  FollowUp  M&F  A s s e s s e d As Una s s e r t i v e by Questionnaire  No  Controls  Behavioural Not & Self-Report  Assessed  None  M&F  A s s e s s e d a s Una s s e r t i v e , one Questionnaire  No  Controls  Behavioural Not & Self-Report  Assessed  None  University  F  Phone I n t e r v i e w , Questionnaire  No  Controls  S e l f - R e p o r t , A s s e s s e d Gen- Phone Behavioural e r a 1i z a t i o n & Transfer of Training Directly  Media  M&F  Questionnaires & Interview  P r a c t i sed I m a g i n i ng Scenes  M&F  A s s e s s e d by Questionnaire  P l a c e b o ConSelf-Report t r o l , No-Treat- Peer Report ment C o n t r o l Behavioural  Volunteered  P l a c e b o Cont r o l , no- . Treatment Control  Demonstrated Assertiveness  I n a b i l i t y to Express Selves  Source  McFall & Marston (1970)  Behaviour Rehearsal, Feedback vs. Behav4 iour Rehearsal Without Feedback  Universi ty  M&F  Behaviour Rehearsal & Response Feedback vs. B e h a v i o u r Rehearsal Without  Psyc hoiogy Classes  Gal a s s i & Galassi (1976)  Uni v e r s i t y E f f e c t s of Role Playing Variations on A s s e r t i v e R e s p o n s e s  Rosenthal & Reese (1976)  Covert vs. Overt Modeling With Hierarchies Covert  Kazdin (1976)  Modeling  Ads  cu  w  Fol1ow-Up  Dependent Measures  Primary Therapy (or Topic of Interest)  &  Transfer of T r a i n i ng  Controls (Condi t i o n s or Subjects)  Authors  Melnick Stocker (1977)  c ° +->  Subjects Sex Selection  Nietzel, Martorano & Melnick (1977)  Covert Modeling & Reinforcement v s . C o v e r t Mode l i n g with Reply Training  Uni v e r s i ty  Young, Rimm & Kennedy (1973)  Modeling & Reinforcement vs. M o d e l i n g Without  Uni v e r s i ty  Hersen, Eisler, Miller, Johnson & Pi n k s t o n (1973)  M o d e l i n g Vs. I n s t r u c t i o n s vs. Modeling With I n s t r u c t i o n s  Psychi atric Patients  Eisler, Hersen & Miller, (1974)  Behaviour Rehearsal Instructions & Feedback  2 Psychiatric M Inpati ents  M&F  Phone Call ( f r o m imp? o s t e r at 2 Weeks)  Call  Assessed Generalization  Self-Report at 4 Months  Assessed Generalizat i o n ; phone cal 1  Phone C a l l at 4 Months  Self-Report Behavioural  Assessed Generalization  None  PracticeControl & Assessment Control  Behavioural Self-Report  Not  None  MultipleBaseline Design  Behavi oural  Assessed Generalization  Self-Report Behavioural  Assessed  -Behavioural at 9 Months  44,  Controls (Condi t i o n s or S u b j e c t s )  Dependent Measures  Transfer of Training  Fol1ow-Up  A s s e s s e d by Questi onnai re  AssessmentPi a c e b o Control  Behavi oural Self-Report  Assessed Transfer of T r a i n i n g & Generalization  Phone Call a t 3-5 D a y s  Uni v e r s i t y  A s s e s s e d by Questionnaires (2)  PlaceboControl  Behavi oural Self-Report  Not  None  Relative Effectiveness of Rehearsal Modeling & Coaching  I n t r o d u c t o r y M&F Psychology Courses  A s s e s s e d by Questionnaire & Interview  Behavi oural AssessmentControl & Minimal- Treat ment C o n t r o l  Modeling & Behaviour R e h e a r s a l v s . Modeling & Behaviour R e h e a r s a l & R.E.T. vs. ConsciousnessRaising  Outpatient F Psychotherapy Clinic  A s s e s s e d by 2 Questionnaires  Waiting Control  Authors  Primary Therapy (or Topic of Interest)  Source  McFall & Li 11esand (1971)  Overt vs. Covert R e h e a r s a l & Modeling & Coaching  Uni v e r s i t y  Effects of Coaching Behaviour Rehearsal & Modeling  McFall & Twentyman (1973) Wolfe & Fodor (1977)  t/i T u r n e r £ & Adams (1977)  Subjects Sex S e l e c t i o n  M&F  List  Behavioural Self-Report  Assessed  Assessed Generalizat i o n ; phone call  V a r i ous Fol1ow-Up Measures  Not  None  Assessed  47 General  Conclusions  In r e v i e w ,  then,  i n v e s t i g a t o r s have s t u d i e d  of numerous treatment produce beneificial  approaches  d e f e c i t s and  is  particular deficit  previous  studies  characteristic Sarason negative  S c h w a r t z and  Gottman  until  underlying  fully  anxious  C l a r k and  more n e g a t i v e  of s o c i a l  the  and  conducted  from  perspective  (1975) and  skills;  and  nature  and  can  anxiety This  self-  investigation  we The  apparent.  extent  and  of  expect present  particular relevant  interpersonal behaviour.  expect  less positive  e f f e c t i v e manner.  regarding  and  that unassertive individuals  anxiety,  mechanisms which u n d e r l i e s o c i a l  Smith  negative  effectiveness is clearly  comprehend  cognitions  Arkowitz  of t h e i r s o c i a l  (1976) r e p o r t e d  Certain  students  overestimated  to i n v e s t i g a t e the  the  t o be s p e c i f i e d  individual.  that socially  social  to remedy.  need f o r f u r t h e r c o n c e p t u a l  deficits  attempt  anxious  subjects  in a s a t i s f a c t o r i l y  will  yet  to  anxiety,  to the d i s t i n c t i v e  others;  of s o c i a l  we  What has  are attempting  positive aspects  The  in the area  it  from  experiencing  statements.  we  socially  that anxious  underestimated  Mot  of the  (1975) r e v e a l e d  concluded  reported  unassertion.  have a l l u d e d  feedback  (many o f w h i c h a p p e a r  r e s u l t s ) to a l l e v i a t e s o c i a l  skills the  the e f f i c a c y  the  to  treat study  cognitive  their implications  exploration will  of decision-making  theory.  be  48  Decision  Making Theory:  Decision of  making  how i n d i v i d u a l s  The S u b j e c t i v e  t h e o r y has a d d r e s s e d  make c h o i c e s  more than one a l t e r n a t i v e  (e.g.Pollard  Beach, 1978; M i t c h e l l  1975).  concluded  that  pain.  In  situations  utilities  and p a i n f u l  involving  t h e one which  negative u t i l i t y  several  and  leads  certain  situations,  the decision  individuals are utility,  excess of positive & Mitchell,  to the d e s i r a b i l i t y  (Edwards,  utilities.  over  1972). o f an  1962).  however, d e c i s i o n s  m u s t be made  the concept of probability  is  introduced,  now b e c o m e s a r i s k y o n e a s i t m u s t b e m a d e  based on t h e i n d i v i d u a l s j u d g e d 1  occurrance of various subjective  defined  knowledge o f the expected occurance of outcomes.  such predicaments,  partially  maker  t o as  w i t h maximum o v e r a l l  refers  behaviour or painful  outcomes a r e  alternatives,  (Edwards, 1954; P o l l a r d  to the decision  o f human  are referred  to the greatest  summary, t h e n , u t i l i t y  without prior In  t h e goal  outcomes as n e g a t i v e  thought to choose the a l t e r n a t i v e  In  Campbell  t h e works o f Jeremy  o f outcomes, where p l e a s u r a b l e  positive  outcome  1961; F r i e d l e r &  These pleasurable  of consequences of actions  as  In  involve  & M i t c h e l l , 1972;  & Biglan,  (1954), i n reviewing  to seek p l e a s u r e and avoid  properties  i.e.  which  1976; Holmstrom & Beach, 1973; Muchinsky & F i t c h ,  Edwards  utilities  Model  to the issue  & Beach, 1976; Beach, Townes,  Bentham and James M i l l is  Utility  itself  in situations  Edwards, 1954, 1961, 1962; Mitchel  & Keating,  Expected  probability  probability  outcomes o f h i s a c t i o n s . i s a number  zero and one) which r e p r e s e n t s  The term  (traditionally  the extent  of the  between  t o w h i c h an  individual  49  t h i n k s a given event i s l i k e l y to occur (Edwards, Given the concepts of u t i l i t y and s u b j e c t i v e  1961).  probability,  Edwards (1961) has c r e a t e d the S u b j e c t i v e Expected U t i l i t y ( S E U ) model which s t a t e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s maxim<imi ze the of u t i l i t y in  and s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y when making d e c i s i o n s  risky situations. n £~  SEU=  where  CZPiUi  U refers of  +  t o the u t i l i t i e s  that  t o the u t i l i t i e s  each  possible  occurance,  i s equal  the consequences  outcome, m u l t i p l i e d  will  the largest  Mitchell, subjective  1972).  select  of failure  According  the course  utility of  t o t h e SEU'  o faction  the usage o f s u b j e c t i v e  which  probability  ( T v e r s k y & K a h n e m a n , 1973, 1974; P o l l a r d & One q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n s  p r o b a b i l i t i e s are congruent  Some ( e . g . T v e r s k y  occur  SEU.  Some h a v e q u e s t i o n e d t h e SEU model  consequences  by i t ' s p r o b a b i l i t y o f  summed a c r o s s a l l o u t c o m e s . should  consequences  o f success, i . e .  t o the (positive o r negative)  model, the i n d i v i d u a l produces  o fnegative  probability  1 - P i s the probability  then,  ofpositive '  P i s the subjective  SEU,  _ (-Ui)^]  (1-Pi)  the actions  U refers  in  product  & Kahneman,  the issue with  (1974) a r g u e  o f whether  probability that  theory.  subjective  50 probability ability 1961;  c a n n o t be c o n c e i v e d  while  Peterson  individuals the  others  model  ( e . g . Beach & Peterson,  do p e r f o r m  predicts  Savage  there  c a n u s e t h e SEU model  the  presence of congruence  probabilities.  That  Beach  i s , when e x p o s e d  according  to relevant  subjective  1969)  states  manipulations abilisitc  probabilities subjective  i n d i v i d u a l s ex==  subjects  revise  i s prescribed  the degree  i n t h e e x p e r i e m e n t such as  exist  (Beach,  but are unable  1968).  One  the p r o b a b i l i s t i c to perform  i n order  subjects  but they  aspects  are able  aspects  the required their supp-  1968; Beach & Wise,  to perform  mathematical  do n o t c o r r e c t l y a p p r e c i a t e  o f an e x p e r i m e n t .  the  states  to correctly revise  (Beach, 1968; K l e i n m u n t z ,  that  their  by r e v i s i o n s  p r o b a b S i l a i t a e s . T h e mi s p e r c e p t i o n h y p o t h e s i s ,  by B e a c h  without  Two m a j o r h y p o t h e s e s c o n c e r n i n g  manipulations  orted  that  1976).  To a c e r t a i n e x t e n t ,  correctly perceive  of the experiment  that  data,  d e p e n d s on v a r i a t i o n s  etiology of conservatism  mathematical  the possibility  when r e v i s i n g t h e i r s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s .  to Bayes Theorem.  subjects  more  objective  of utilizing  (1968) has noted  sample s i z e and p a y o f f s .  that  Along  as  ( M i t c h e l l & Beach,  p r o b a b i l i t i e s l e s s than  of conservatism  s i t u a t i o n s as  as a d e s c r i p t i v e model, even  onto the dilemma  conservatism  subjective  i s no s u c h t h i n g  that  all probabilities  into the revision of subjective  s h e d some l i g h t  perience  that  (1954) has presented  one  has  making  (1954) has s t a t e d  Edwards  Research  evidence  ( P o l l a r d & M i t c h e l l , 1972).  subjective — that  probability.  i n many d e c i s i o n  prob-  1966; Edwards,  & Beach, 1967) have presented  extreme l i n e s , are  o f as s i m i l a r t o o b j e c t i v e  the prob-  51 Edwards  ( 1 9 6 1 , 1962)  probabilities up  to  1.00.  abilities  Pollard & Mitchell do  sum  to  1.00,  that  the  subjective  probabi1ities  (e.g.  be  maker.  estimates,  b a s e d on  the  flihen.SEUomodel making process  bets). fairly  & Beach, 19$8), b i r t h planning Campbell  & Keating,  preferences studying  b e t w e e n an SEUs t h a t Ten  Beach  associated  agreement  between  a career  were i n t e r v i e w e d  (including  processes  to examine the  decision  decisions  Townes,  (Beach, preference  and  as  of  the  for  planned  payoffs  they  and  t o go  to  expected  female  mentioned  the  occupation.  were d e r i v e d 15  1972).  relationship  for occupation  15 m a l e a n d  previously  academic  a framework  each a l t e r n a t i v e  about the  students  (Pollard & Mitchell,  (1973) i n v e s t i g a t e d  mentioned.  seven of the  both  obtained  (Fiedler  in psychology--18 categories  most f r e q u e n t l y  those  and  subjective probabilities.  u n d e r g r a d u a t e p s y c h o l o g y m a j o r s who  school,  and  M i t c h e l l & Beach, 1976),  with  indir-  to a s s e r t o n e s e l f  individual's preference are  whether  high  evidence that  c o n c e p t of s o c i a l power  H o l m s t r o m and  into  Beach  ( M u c h i n s k y & F i t c h , 1975)  the  are  ( 1 9 7 4 ) and  1976), occupational  ( H o l m s t r o m & B e a c h , 1973;  prob-  outcomes taken  add  Beach  been implemented decision  i f the  the  outcomes are  same u n d e r l y i n g  i n the  events should  be m e a s u r e d d i r e c t l y o r  providing  has  subjective  Others have c o n s i d e r e d  should  i n f e r r i n g by  that  p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n f e r r e d from bets  from verbal may  decision  by  this implies  (1967) have o b t a i n e d  subjective  whether the  (197,2) n o t e t h a t  a l l possible  a c c o u n t by  Phillips  investigated  of a set of n a t u r a l l y exclusive  i n d e p e n d e n t and  ectly  has  ten)  of  graduate from  payoffs  students were  asked  52 to  r a t e (on a s c a l e from  zero to 100), their  preference of  eight occupational a l t e r n a t i v e s i n the f i e l d Each in  s u b j e c t then  terms  ranked  of their  also arranged abilities  relative  were o b t a i n e d each  eight occupations.  payoff would  was c o m p u t e d  Finally,  authors  f o r each  a similar  academic viewed  areas  occupation  t h a t a mean c o r r e l a t i o n  o f .83 p r o v i d e d  o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s c a n be  f a s h i o n , Muchinsky  and F i t c h  of interest.  accounted  15 g r a d u a t e  students  (e.g. education, psychology,  p r e f e r a b i 1 i t y , from  z e r o t o 100.  14 p a y o f f s w e r e r a t e d f r o m  t h a t each academic  p a y o f f would r e s u l t areas.  between each subject's  For each  SEU f o r e a c h  examined  preferences f o r  s t u d e n t s were  t o r e c e i v e when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r  occupations.  areas  10 g r a d u a t e  (1975)  t o e v e n t u a l l y d e r i v e 14 c a t e g o r i e s o f p a y o f f s  expected  the  subject,  f o r the occupations.  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n SEU a n d s t u d e n t s '  of  of the  by t h e r e l a t i v e m a g n i t u d e s o f t h e a s s o c i a t e d SEUs. In  and  by e a c h  b e t w e e n h i s SEU f o r e a c h  The  for  prob-  s u b j e c t , an SEU was c o m p u t e d f o r  his previously rated preferences  that relative  Subjective  be s a t i s f i e d  and  evidence  were  by s u b j e c t s ' e s t i m a t i o n s o f t h e  For each  concluded  These u t i l i t i e s  z e r o t o 100.  of the eight occupations.  a correlation  psychology.  (previously derived)  importance.  on a s c a l e f r o m  probabi1ityythat  each  t h e 18 p a y o f f s  of  future  then  Utilities  students  education  ranked  economics,  inter-  s i x academic  e t c . ) i n terms o f each o f  zero t o 100, and t h e p r o b a b i l i t y i n s t u d y i n g each  of the s i x  s u b j e c t , SEUs were then o f the s i x academic  r a t e d p r e f e r e n c e f o r each  computed  areas  o f the academic  and t h e areas.  53 11  of the  15  relation  c o r r e l a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t , with  of  Using  the  SEU  m o d e l was  dealing  with  Similar  classes  a method of a i d i n g  who  had  employed  a large  previously  participated utilities  decided final  couplesi  prior decisions  Fiedler the  SEU  study. two  having  completed  T r a i t Scale  of the  were l a t e r d i v i d e d high,  medium and  given  a list  of  having both  to a s s e r t decision  Two  classes  Rathus A s s e r t i o n Anxiety  medium and  anxiety.  Following  himself.  whether  i n d i v i d u a l i n s o m e way,  consequences  assertiveness  f o r not  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  in making the  State=Trait  into high,  low 15  the  calculated  a child.  individual's decision  first  assigning  s a t i s f a c t o r i l y confirmed  t o an  an  couples  After  one  model  oneself,  individual  Seven  SEUs were  (1978) i n v e s t i g a t e d  that  classes.  to have a c h i l d  a b a b y and  consequences of his actions.  o p e d by  class.  Beach  to a s s e r t  students the  of the  regarding  hypothesized  classes.  t o e n a b l e an  whether or not  results obtained  of  into higher-order  i n any  aspect  about  manageability  and  authors  or? n o t the  item  Keating  A hierarchical  outcome  i n a way  each couple--one f o r having The  The  together  and  in thinking  the  subjectivecprobabi1ities,  a baby.  of  increase  number o f p o s s i b l e  to each  i n the  and  to  were c o n s t r u c t e d  utilities  couples  to have a c h i l d .  were grouped  hierarchies  to a s s i g n  for  model, Beach, Townes, Campbell  consequences of deciding  utility  The  cor-  .81.  (1976) developed the  a mean  evaluates  of female  college  Inventory  and  Inventory--subjects low  assertive  t h i s , they  ( p o s i t i v e and  and  were  negative),  t r a i n e r s to r e f l e c t p o s s i b l e  results  develof  54 assertive labelled one  behaviour. by  them as  to f o u r  Subjects  rated  the  utilities  p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e .  i f p o s i t i v e , and  minus four  Ratings  in  the  ented  of a request) role playing  as  peers  were viewed  saw  itional jects  two  scene  saw  involved  half received  to comply.  i f they Finally,  SEU  was  the  so  in the  situation.  Although  the  subjects'  were found  situation.  subjects'  scenes,  and  low  t h i s may who  The  authors  have been a f u n c t i o n of the  intended  to more o f t e n  refuse  add-  of the  sub-  10  For  to  subject,  These in  to  that  comply  consistent medium  SEUs f o r h i g h ,  and medium  that  tests chosen.  t o c o m p l y , saw  c o n s e q u e n c e s o f r e f u s a l as more l i k e l y  refuse  each  scene.  no  occur  a 'iz  given  have s p e c u l a t e d two  on  a c t u a l l y would  SEUs f o r h i g h ,  a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s or between the subjects.  An  i n t e n t to act  low  anxious  variables,  rated  i n t e n t i o n s to r e f u s e  between the  four  were to  whether they  were h i g h l y r e l a t e d to SEUs f o r the differences  then  i f they  c a l c u l a t e d f o r each r o l e p l a y i n g  SEUs were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  pres-  scenes,wwft'iftetfcheoo.ther  were to comply or  t o do  Half  Subjects  noted  Recipients  scenes.  p r o b a b i l i t y of each of  subjects  the  peer/authority  request.  form.  negative.  f e m a l e and  of e i g h t  enactments, of the  t o 100  comply or r e f u s e an  a reasonable  them i n w r i t t e n  s c a l e f r o m one consequences  for a total  as  each of the  o f m a l e / f e m a l e and  scenes,  videotaped  For  from  if  subjects.  m a l e and  of a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e s .  ranged  (defined  the  scenes were both  possible combinations subjects  by  consequences  t o m i n u s one  Nine scenes r e q u i r i n g a s s e r t i v e behaviour refusal  of  positive  Subjects  55  a.nd  negative  subjective likely  c o n s e q u e n c e s as probabi1ities  to r e f u s e  greater  an  Other findings  consequences  authority  the  videotaped  For  several  f i g u r e and  of d e c i s i o n As  the  making  authors  t o r i e s may findings  m e d i u m was  reasons,  F i e d l e r and  that  the  and  anxiety  inventory  may  be  m a l e s and  of  lack  high,  to assess  i n t e r e s t to study  the  written  indicating  examination  T r a i t Scale  medium and  low and  these  qualities.  decision  making of  anxiety Further, both  females.  the  assertion (Fiedler as  the  Inven-  of s i g n i f i c a n t  A more c o m p r e h e n s i v e d e f i n i t i o n of a s s e r t i o n would extend  a  investigation.  groups, a d i f f e r e n t assertion  substituted  with  one.  (1978)  further  R a t h u s and  b e t w e e n mean SEU's f o r t h e  be  Beach's  f o r the  subjects'  tendency for  SEUs, p o s s i b l y  rated  less  oneself  a more r e a l i s t i c  have been r e s p o n s i b l e  assertion  i t would  the  in assertion merits  speculated  Their  include  in asserting  scenes to evoke s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher that  to occur.  were more e x t r e m e than t h o s e  to comply.  f e a r of the  peer than with  less likely  a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the as  the  refusal  to comply with  & B e a c h , 1 9 7 8 ) , one  expression  opinions,  (both  results — rather  can  conceive  of o n e s e l f — e x p r e s s i n g p o s i t i v e and  an  negative)  than  likely  defining  unreasonable of  i t more  request  broadly  feelings, beliefs, or perhaps  standing  up  forone'srights. Recall individual's act  in that  that SEU  F i e d l e r and with  Beach  (1978) c o r r e l a t e d  his behavioural  situation.  i n d i c a t e whether or not  intent—his  S p e c i f i c a l l y , subjects they  would comply or  an  intent  were asked refuse  to  to to  comply  56 if  they  grants  were  in that situation.  us l i t t l e  i n d i c a t i o n o f how  he a c t u a l l y w e r e ions not  He may  have the best  i n . t u r n i n g down an u n r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t ,  situation. presented  that  he w i l l  In f a c t , w r i t t e n by v i d e o t a p e )  but t h i s  (as opposed to  those  (1978) study.  A more d i r e c t  is warranted.  possibility  pre-stated  outcomes  all  t h e SEU m o d e l , t h e n  r e l e v a n t mode o f c o g n i t i o n to consider  A more r e l e v a n t generate as  outcomes  and r e a l i s t i c  t h e i r own  are likely  approach would do t h e y  a r e s u l t of asserting themselves?  SEU m o d e l  of perception  cognitive style.  subjects  vignettes. (1978)  study were  not r e l e v a n t  becomes a s t r u c t u r e d ,  t y p i c a l l y may  outcomes—what  settings  to a l l subjects.  f o r some s u b j e c t s , they  of  of asserting oneself  by a s s e r t i o n t r a i n e e s a n d g i v e n  Because these  them  realistic  of the F i e d l e r & Beach  to note i s t h a t p o s s i b l e outcomes  subjects,  i n such  i s the u t i l i z a t i o n  somewhat U n s t r u c t u r e d ,  An e s s e n t i a l a s p e c t  derived  the  did produce s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e h a v i o u r  playing  does  with  assessment measure  role  intent-  do s o w h e n f a c e d  scenes  s i n t h e F i e d l e r and Beach  One  measure  an i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d a c t i f  i n the s i t u a t i o n .  n e c e s s a r i l y imply  SEU  Such a h y p o t h e t i c a l  to non-  as i t f o r c e s not  consider.  be t o h a v e  think  could  In t h i s s e n s e ,  subjects happen  the  w o u l d n o t be a s f o r e i g n t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s  57 Proposed  Hypotheses  The Fiedler  present and  decision  investigation  Beach's  making p e r s p e c t i v e  A.  issues  Will  be  their  and  assertive  l a r g e r m e a n SEU will  of  designated  scores  on  further  low  as  the  studying  or  Gambrill  individuals  occurring  as  be  Sarason and B.  Will  an  with  i n d i v i d u a l ' s SEU  C.  assertive  Arkowitz  (Subjects  according  to One  indicate  that  consequences  themselves.  This  of Smith  ( 1 9 7 5 ) and  his  would  and  Schwartz  andindividual  individual's  he  asserted  perception  himself  and  while role  SEUs w i l l  be  in  Recall  that  is expected  then, that  an  behaviour  situations?  It would f e l l o w ,  and  a  Inventory).  research  which produces the  SEU  include:  individuals?  course of a c t i o n  Two  and  a group generate  more p o s i t i v e  predict  role playing  theory,  himself  cognitions  t h i s would  previous and  the  (1976).  unstructured t o SEU  low  perceive  the  (1975), Clark  Gottman  as  a r e s u l t of a s s e r t i n g  in accord  develop  individuals.  Assertion  w o u l d e x p e c t t h i s r e s u l t , as assertive  the  assertive  high  on  investigation  individuals  than  to expand  further  unassertive  necessitating  high  attempt  ( 1 9 7 8 ) s t u d y and  behaviours of a s s e r t i v e Current  will  an  association  whether or  not  accordi  to choose  largest  of what would  the  SEU  the  value.  exists  between  happen  (SEU)  does  assert  he  if  playing. generated  a "freeform"  SEU.  f o r s u b j e c t s - = a trca'diti'onal The  difference  in these  two  58 SEU  models  lies  i n g e n e r a t i n g the outcomes.  outcomes r e s u l t i n g  from  assertion  w i 1 1 be p r e s e n t e d t o  subjects f o r the computation  of the traditional  while  to generate  for  subjects will  be a s k e d  the f r e e f o r m model.  an e x a m i n a t i o n predicts  A third  of which  the dependent  behaviour?  by s u b j e c t s t h e m s e l v e s  role  ividuals will  (traditional  individuals  i s , as compared  associate  gener-  t o be m o r e  per-  that a subjectissfreeform  model).  been  d e r i v e d by  and t h i s  to assertive  are expected  playing  than  i s expected performance.  t o g e n e r a t e more n e g a t i v e  and r o l e  will  subjects,. unassertive  a higher subjective probability  these outcomes,  assertive-  unassertive ind-  (who, i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d , outcomes),  than  Further, i t i s expected  own o u t c o m e s ,  be i n a c c o r d w i t h a p o o r e r r o l e  subjects  of  are expected  outcomes  g e n e r a t e more n e g a t i v e outcomes  g e n e r a t e more p o s i t i v e  That  best  role-playing  Because  on o u t c o m e s t h a t have  t h a t when g e n e r a t i n g t h e i r  to  concerns  be more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i s b e h a v i o u r  trainers  assertive  outcomes  hypothesis then,  playing.  relevant, i t i s expected  an SEU b a s e d ness  own  I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e f r e e f o r m SEU m o d e l  ated  will  their  measure—subjects'  better predict  SEU  SEU,  o f t h e s e two SEU m o d e l s  will  sonally  D.  Possible  play in a less  to the  outcomes, occurence  assertive fashion.  P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has s o u n d l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h e e x i s t e n c e of  behavioural differences  individuals((e.g . Eisler,  between low and h i g h Miller  & Gottman, 1976; Greenwald,  & Hersen,  1977).  1973 ;  assertive Schwartz  A l t h o u g h much o f t h i s  59  research iatric the  has been c o n d u c t e d w i t h  populations,  behavioural  clinical regarding  a paucity  of research  populations.  More e l a b o r a t i o n  an e x a m i n a t i o n  will  proposed  expected  subjects.  psych-  exists  regarding non-.  is necessitated  of effective interpersonal A final  behav-  hypothesis  investigation i s that assertive  comply l e s s often  unassertive  or  d i f f e r e n c e s which e x i s t between  iour of n o n - c l i n i c a l populations. the  date-anxious  of  subjects  and r o l e p l a y more e f f e c t i v e l y i t h a n In o t h e r  to e x i s t between  w o r d s , an a s s o c i a t i o n i s  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f - r e p o r t  of a s s e r t i o n and h i s b e h a v i o u r  i n the r o l e playing  setting.  60  Method  General  Strategy  Participants administered  i n part;!II of the study were  an a s s e r t i o n i n v e n t o r y , t h e n d e s i g n a t e d a s  or  low  assertive.  of  four interpersonal situations.  received selves own  high  A l l s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n H a l f of the  a l i s t of p o s s i b l e consequences  subjects  of a s s e r t i n g them-  in these s i t u a t i o n s , while the other h a l f generated  perceived consequences.  rated  initially  the u t i l i t y  For each  their  scene,  a l l subjects  and  the s u b j e c t i v e  of these consequences  probability  t h a t each  would occur  i f t h e y a c t e d i n an a s s e r t i v e o r a n u n a s s e r t i v e  manner.  An  SEU  f o r each  of the f o u r scenes  for  scene,  f o r each  individual.  each  participants behaviour  was  role then  of the p r e v i o u s l y l i s t e d  played each  consequences  was  then c a l c u l a t e d  In a s e c o n d  session,  of the f o u r s i t u a t i o n s  r a t e d b y two  "blind"  and  their  judges.  Subjects Pa.rt I . included  ten  s t u d e n t s who one  ( t h r e e male and  seven  in p a r t I of the  female)  were i n t e r v i e w e d i n d i v i d u a l l y  study  undergraduate for  arts  approximately  hour. Part  uate arts study. one  Subjects participating  II.  A total  o f 60  (11 m a l e and  49 f e m a l e )  s t u d e n t s v o l u n t e e r e d to p a r t i c i p a t e  A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s were seen  in groups,  undergrad-  i n p a r t I I o f t h e :, for  approximately  hour.  Procedure Part volunteer  I.  This initial  s u b j e c t s as an  a s p e c t o f t h e s t u d y was investigation  presented  of the f a c t o r s people  to  61 consider with  when d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t t o e x p r e s s  others.  ially,  Individual interviews  Gambrill  administered Gambrill  and Richey's  this  and Richey  as  (Gambrill  high  those  training  one-half  and Richey's) who s c o r e d  assertive.  Data obtained  standard  standard  one-half  standard  from  deviation  above  as low  deviation  below,  i n d i v i d u a l s who  scored  retained  purposes. of the inventory,  with  assertiveness  r e f e r s to the honest  a f i r m , but calm both  participants  the following d e f i n i t i o n of assertiveness: and d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n  one's b e l i e f s or o p i n i o n s , o r , standing  were  rating  In t h e p r e s e n t  d e v i a t i o n o f t h e mean was  were p r o v i d e d  was b r i e f l y  ( 1 9 7 5 ) was  mean w e r e d e s i g n a t e d  Subsequent to the completion  respects  and, i n i t ^  a mean d i s c o m f o r t  95.0 f o r u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s .  within one-half for  assertion inventory  (1975) r e p o r t e d  s u b j e c t s who s c o r e d  assertive;  were scheduled  ( s e e A p p e n d i x A) t o e a c h o f t h e t e n p a r t i c i p a n t s .  of approximately study,  themselves  fashion.  himself  discussed  Being  with  up f o r o n e ' s r i g h t s i n  assertive reflects  and t h e other  of  person.  t h a t one  This d e f i n i t i o n  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t and any  questions  answered. Four  (Appendix was t h e n  scenes  chosen  B) w e r e t h e n reread  read  assertiveness  to subjects.  t h e s u b j e c t was a s k e d  set of questions  situations  Each o f t h e  and i n d i v i d u a l l y d i s c u s s e d .  each of the scenes, standard  to represent  Specifically, for  to respond  ( A p p e n d i x . C ) i n an e f f o r t  what f a c t o r s she would c o n s i d e r  scenes  i f she were d e c i d i n g  to a to ascertain whether  or n o t t o a s s e r t h e r s e l f i f she were i n t h e s i t u a t i o n .  Following  62 this, with  the an  s u b j e c t was  explanation  The  of the  tape-recorded  of s i m i l a r content trained scores  t h a n k e d f o r her  using fell  the  responses  audiotaped  were s o r t e d D)  by  two  responses  one-half  standard  the  Gambri11-Richey discomfort  was  computed  as  The  II.  The  scale.  comfort  scale.  in  II o f the  H a l f of the  As  F) f o r e a c h o f t h e 60  other  i n d i v i d u a l s were a s s i g n e d  assertive-  SEU-F; low  final  subjects  an a s s e r t i o n i n v e n t o r y effort  each:  included and  was  entirely  "There  t o one  high  only  optional--you  30  low  groups  the  those  assertive.  In  SEUs  (SEU-  summary,  conditions high  assertive-SEU-F. s u b j e c t s who  i n a second  Subjects study  i t .  completed  session.  volunteers  p a r t to the h a v e t o do  dis-  generated  of four  low  made to o b t a i n  don't  on  assertive-SEU-T;  role played  i s a second  categorized  situations.  laboratory role playing session.  following:  initially  half, "freeform"  assertive-SEU-T:  s a m p l e o f 60  N e x t , an  two  four assertiveness  o f 15  later  the  study.  subjects participated  a s s e r t i v e and  in each of these  (SEU-T),  was  were then  60  categories  II o f the  to t h e i r scores  p r e v i o u s l y noted,  consisting  The  i n g r o u p s who  study--30 high  SEUs  total  interrater  for part  inventory  assertive according  subjects  "traditional"  then,  in a questionnaire  to s u b j e c t s  or low  Obtained  on  agreement  15 m o s t f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n e d  Gambri11-Richey  whose  d e v i a t i o n o f t h e mean  the  high  part  subjects  by d i v i d i n g n u m b e r o f a g r e e m e n t s by  .84.  categories Judges  of  was  administered  judges.  Percentage  were s e l e c t e d f o r use Part  i n t o 44  of those  number o f a g r e e m e n t s p l u s d i s a g r e e m e n t s . reliability  provided  study.  (see Appendix  within  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  for  the  were t o l d which  the  is  It involves  coming  63  i n , i n a b o u t a week and m e e t i n g who i s w o r k i n g o n t h e s t u d y .  individually  time  and i t i n v o l v e s  conversations  this  person.  it,  please  in touch your  leave your  with  you.  of your  help."  having  I f you're  about  three  brief  i n t e r e s t e d i n doing  p h o n e n u m b e r a n d we may o r may n o t g e t I f you're  phone number.  someone e l s e  The meeting would take  10 m i n u t e s o f y o u r with  with  not i n t e r e s t e d , don't  leave  E i t h e r w a y , we v e r y m u c h a p p r e c i a t e a l l  58% o f t h e s u b j e c t s d i d v o l u n t e e r  f o r this  secondsession. Questionnaires  were d e s i g n e d  each o f the four a s s e r t i v e n e s s i n A p p e n d i x B. completed in  submitted  The o r d e r  term  to avoid using  "expressing  more s p e c i f i c a l l y conversation request the  F.  foraeach  i n the party  was  and e x p r e s s i n g  situation.  "assertive  questionnaires  were s i m i l a r with  p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e  possibly in  This  resulting  the four  from  hypothetical  was  as beginning  a  request f o r  to the group i n the  f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n ' o f t h e two one e x c e p t i o n .  tradi.tJ6nal;.;,SEUJ c o n d i t i o n were g i v e n (i.e.  behaviour"  t u r n i n g down t h e p r o f e s s o r ' s  one's opinion  Procedures  of the  counterbalanced.  situation  situation,  those  the questionnaire  y o u r s e l f " was s u b s t i t u t e d .  defined  E;  of presentation  t h e term  outlined  SEU c o n d i t i o n  f o r w o r k , t u r n i n g down t h e a c q u a i n t a n c e ' s  essay  smoking  SEU v a l u e f o r  as Appendix  s i t u a t i o n s on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  In an e f f o r t the  submitted  SEU c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d  as Appendix  an  situations previously  i n the traditional  the questionnaire  the freeform  four  Subjects  to generate  one l i s t  considerations  Subjects  o f 15 o u t c o m e s  and c o n s e q u e n c e s  a s s e r t i v e or nonassertive situations),  i n the  the items  behaviour  of which  were  64 derived ered  from p a r t  for  all  I of  the  four assertion  situations  were p r e s e n t e d  instead  being presented  of  study.  to  t o each  be l i s t e d  of  i n the  Participants (referred That  is,  to  subjects  with  t o as  outcomes,  those  outcomes  had g e n e r a t e d of  each  of  they  the  u t i l i t i e s of  point  considering a l l  Assessments  of  subjects the  situation  one t o  100  expressed  outcomes. 15 g i v e n  behaviour the  Again,  utility  situation,  oneself  the of subjects  the  utility  subjects  only once,  at  this  Utilities  four.  of  then  obtained  hypothetical  express  she c h o s e n o t  specific  in  As SEU-F  p r o b a b i l i t y were  chose to  and i f  herself  circum-  in  to express  d e f i n i t i o n s of  the herself  expressing  were p r o v i d e d i n w r i t t e n f o r m .  s u b j e c t s were r e q u e s t e d  how p r o b a b l e  themselves.  the  w h i l e SEU-T  positive  subjects.  utility  listed of  each  were  to  four situations.as.arwhole.  individual  themselves  own outcomes  the  rated  under two c o n d i t i o n s  and n o t e x p r e s s i n g scene,  the  15 outcomes  subjective  (assertion)  (nonassertion).  For each  the  was r a t e d ,  f r o m minus f o u r t o  stances—if  of  utility  p a r t i c u l a r to  same f o u r  outcomes,  Outcomes  had p r e v i o u s l y g e n e r a t e d .  outcomes  of  their  rated  w h i l e SEU-F s u b j e c t s  rated  from a l l  the  list  r e s u l t i n g from a s s e r t i v e  t h e s e outcomes  were r a t e d  o f each  rated  the  they occurred  i n both groups then  importance)  situations,  generate  i n which  be c o n s i d -  i n the S E U - F i ' g r o u p ,  a standard  to  was t o  Although  four s i t u a t i o n s .  order  SEU-T s u b j e c t s  possible four  the  list  situations.  t h e s e s u b j e c t s were r e q u e s t e d specific  This  each  i n each  consequence  to  rate  on a s c a l e  w o u l d be i f  s i t u a t i o n and d i d n o t  they express  from  65  It of  s h o u l d be n o t e d  the procedure,  that to ensure  f o r each  read the written d i r e c t i o n s ,  with  individuals  they might  Role  from  time  after  they  and. the experimenter  to time  to c l a r i f y  checked  any q u e s t i o n s  Playing Session  assertion  who q u a l i f i e d  (according to their  by t h e r o l e  who a g a i n e x p l a i n e d t h e r o l e that their  responses  i n f o r m a t i o n would answered after  the f i r s t  session.  the role  the role  (Appendix  p l a y e r a few days  playing procedure.  would  be v i d e o t a p e d  be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l .  and an a p p o i n t m e n t  oratory,  s c o r e s on t h e  i n v e n t o r y ) and v o l u n t e e r e d f o r t h e r o l e p l a y i n g  s e s s i o n were t e l e p h o n e d  of  f o r the group  have had r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e .  Those  told  comprehension  section of the questionnaire,  i n s t r u c t i o n s were p r o v i d e d v e r b a l l y had  satisfactory  later  Subjects  were  and t h a t a l l  Any q u e s t i o n s  was t h e n made f o r s e v e n After the subject entered  were  t o t e n days the lab-  p l a y e r r e f r e s h e d t h e i r memory as t o t h e  playing.  A consent  G) w e r e t h e n f i l l e d  form  and demographic  o u t by t h e s u b j e c t .  purpose  sheet The  role  p l a y i n g was t h e n d e s c r i b e d t o t h e s u b j e c t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner:  "We'll  d e s c r i b e each There  will  scene,  would person  scene  scenes. I ' l l  t o y o u , then w e ' l l have a b r i e f c o n v e r s a t i o n .  be t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s  was n o t r o l e each  be a c t i n g o u t t h r e e b r i e f  (the "professor  situation"  p l a y e d ) and w e ' l l t a k e them one a t a t i m e .  In  I ' d l i k e y o u t o be y o u r s e l f - - a c t a s y o u n o r m a l l y  i f you were i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n i n each  scene.  and I ' l l p l a y a  Do y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s  different  I can answer  66 for you?" shown how  A four  to subjects  tense  and i t s p u r p o s e e x p l a i n e d  s i t u a t i o n s were then  videotaped.  were w r i t t e n  role playing role played  to c l o s e l y correspond  s i t u a t i o n s was c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d .  to i n i t i a l l y  be s u p p o r t i v e  any  but while  anxiety,  what c h a l l e n g i n g checked  with  role playing  in a standardized  at i n t e r v a l s to ensure  ing, d i d not respond situationeand  the  subject  I) r o l e  played  presented of role  on t h e  playing  T h e r o l e p l a y e r was  subjects  i n an e f f o r t  s h e was m o r e fashion.  spoke at a s t a n d a r d i z e d  trained  to  f i r m and  a l o o f and  than  rate.  twice  After the  the  was  o f f . At the  time,  s u b j e c t s were thanked f o r t h e i r time  thorough  explanation  questions. casually  As t h e y  s a i d , "Oh,  who's d o i n g really only  T h i s was  listen,  assertiveness  i f they  had any  another  Do y o u t h i n k y o u c o u l d time?  t o be a m o r e  prof  a  player  in the department  a n d he  do i t - - i t  If interested, of the professor  "natural" assessment of  i n the "professor s i t u a t i o n " .  same  given  on v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n  t h e name a n d p h o n e n u m b e r  intended  from  and h e l p ,  and asked  there's  a b o u t an h o u r o f y o u r  were g i v e n  away  were l e a v i n g the l a b o r a t o r y , the r o l e  an e x p e r i m e n t  use s u b j e c t s .  take  of the study  each  three  turned  hot::tu'rned  was  during  t h e c a m e r a was  but the recorder  some-  challeng-  s i t u a t i o n s were r o l e p l a y e d , subject  reduce  Her b e h a v i o u r  t h a t s h e was  t o t h e s u b j e c t more  then  that s i t u a t i o n .  with  to those  Order of presentation  H) was  a s an i n d i c a t o r o f  The s i t u a t i o n s ( s e e A p p e n d i x  SEU q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . the  scale (see Appendix  t h e s u b j e c t was w h i l e  The t h r e e and  point tension  could would subjects to  contact.  subject's  67  After  31  s u b j e c t s were run,  measures were i n t r o d u c e d .  The  to nominate a peer  then  who  was  s u b j e c t w o u l d r e a c t i f she situations nominated were asked  a f t e r they  behave i f they Behavioural  L.  was  role played  videotaped  r a t e d on  five,five-point  in content,  not o v e r l a p  specific  and  (Serber,  a b r i e f manual  Two  (Appendix  s i t u a t i o n how  thy  would K).  experiment  i n the  scales outlined in  behaviour  of  three Appendix  i n d i c a t i v e of psychotics,  in other  research.  Nonverbal  c o n v e y much o f o n e ' s m e s s a g e " b l i n d " judges  were p r o v i d e d  and  the f i v e  t r a i n e d on  to with  scales.  c o r r e l a t i o n between the r a t i n g s  request  was  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the v i s u a l  were s c o r e d  as e i t h e r y e s ,  no,  maybe  or  have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t .  SEUs computed  M)  product—moment  Computation of  rated  1975).  Responses to the  already  the  which have p r e v i o u s l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d  high a s s e r t i v e subjects  perception  of  Similarly, subjects  "tap" dimensions  to the  s c a l e s were s e l e c t e d as t h e y  .92.  each  the  of the a s s e r t i o n  percent  r o l e playing behaviour  do  A Pearson  in each  how  asked  a c t u a l l y were i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n . ( s e e A'ppendix  not  others  to speculate  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  a s s e r t i o n , are  from  asked  s u b j e c t s were  Seventy-seven  S c a l e s were s e l e c t e d which  low  remaining  Ratings  Subjects' scenes  returned  30  a d d i t i o n a l dependent  a c t u a l l y was  (see Appendix J ) . peers  two  SEU  ( i n both f o r each  traditional scene  probabilities;  by t h e f o r m u l a  on  freeform models)  were  by m u l t i p l y i n g r a t e d u t i l i t i e s  then  page).  and  summing o v e r SEUs  a l l outcomes  f o r both  by  (as i n d i c a t e d  a s s e r t i n g and  not  68 asserting single  were c a l c u l a t e d ,  SEU f o r e a c h  asserting for  oneself  each  s i t u a t i o n by s u b t r a c t i n g  f r o m t h e SEU f o r a s s e r t i n g .  by t h e s u b j e c t  T h a t i s , SEUs were d i v i d e d  subjects  as they were given i n the freeform  of outcomes l i s t e d  subject.  a list  condition  by t h a t  subject  an o v e r a l l mean o f t h e s e f o u r each  To o b t a i n  a mean SEU  by t h e number  f o r that  b y 15 f o r s u b j e c t s  situation. i n the t r a d i t i o n a l  o f 15 o u t c o m e s . were d i v i d e d f o r each  a  t h e SEU f o r n o t  s i t u a t i o n , e a c h SEU was t h e n d i v i d e d  of outcomes considered  condition  then combined to y i e l d  SEUs f o r  by t h e number  situation.  Finally,  mean S E U s was c a l c u l a t e d f o r  69 Results  Table  1 summarizes  for a l l subjects.  t h e means o f s e v e r a l key  Participants  averaged  a mean o f t h r e e y e a r s o f u n i v e r s i t y both s c a l e s of the a s s e r t i o n  23 y e a r s o f a g e  education.  Richey  (1975).  reports of tension experienced while role t o 2.12  on t h e f o u r - p o i n t s c a l e ,  "somewhat t e n s e " . situation .69. ion  ranges  Peer  ratings  situations  ratings  from  -0.09  t o 1.35;  projecting  ranges  from  of behaviour ranged  p e e r s and  subjects expected  assertion  situations  "probably assert"  f r o m 6.92  1.56  to 2.05.  As  summarized  of s u b j e c t s ' r o l e  player.  best  c o n t a c t with the r o l e  situation for five  one;  situation rating  situation  rating 2.55  three.  from  assertself-  i s , both  s u b j e c t s would in Table  t o 4.37  responses  2,  from  for situation  s c a l e s were somewhat l e s s two.  in  promoting  Finally,  2.12  t o 4.07  two,  A s s e r t i v e performances  and  their  situation  situation  subjects.  scale ranges  than the f i r s t  That  R a t i n g s by  to 15.77, the second  behavioural performance  scores f o r each  in the  As a w h o l e , s u b j e c t s s c o r e d h i g h e s t  eye  13.15  being  playing behaviour  content of their  from  mean  while subjects  in terms of the a s s e r t i o n  ranged  SEU  t h a t i f they a c t u a l l y were i n t h e s e  themselves.  to 11.45.  assertion  the o v e r a l l  (in a natural setting),  the o b s e r v e r s ' r a t i n g s ranges  from  from  feeling  f o r each  t o 2.00,  self-  p l a y i n g ranges  subjects' behaviour  1.53  on  approximated  Subjects'  indicating  Mean SEUs c a l c u l a t e d  with  Mean s c o r e s  inventory very closely  t h o s e r e p o r t e d by G a m b r i l l a n d  2.03  variables  and  2.18  mean for to  as i n d i c a t e d  satisfactory  the  f o r the  3.40 by  the  third  70  Table 1 Means o f S e v e r a l . Key V a r i a b l e s F o r A l l S u b j e c t s  Variable  Mean  Demographic Information Post-secondary education Age ( y e a r s )  (years)  Self-Report Measures of A s s e r t i o n Gambrill Discomfort Gambrill Probability Self-Report Measures of Tension S i t u a t i on 1 (party) 2 (smoking) 3 (essay) Mean  Peer  SEUs Situation  Ratings S i t u a t i on  1 2 3 4 Overall  mean SEU  1 2 3  Self Ratings of Behaviour Situation 1 2 3  3.12 2 3 . 63  60 60  96.55 102.55  60 60  2.12 2.07 2. 03  60 60 60  1.30 1.35 .20 •0.09 .69  60 60 60 60 60  1.80 1. 53 2.00  30 30 30  1.97 1.56 2 . 05  39 39 39  71 Table Means  2  o f O b s e r v e r s ' R a t i n g s on B e h a v i o u r a l Measures For A l l Subjects  Rating Scale (Totalled Across Eye C o n t a c t Hand R e l a x a t i o n Anxiety Effectiveness Assertion Content  Situations)  Situation (Totalled Across Rating 1 2 3 T o t a l l e d Over 3 S i t u a t i o n s  10.42 6.98 6.92 7.77 11.45  Scales)  14.57 15.77 13.15 43.48  M e a n : R a t i n g s on B e h a v i o u r a l S c a l e s For Each Role P l a y i n g S i t u a t i o n  Rating  Scale  Situation 1  Eye C o n t a c t Hand R e l a x a t i o n Anxiety Effectiveness Assertion Content  3.82 2.12 2.12 2.48 4.07  2  3 3.20 2.57 2.55 3.10 4.37  3.40 2.30 2.25 2.18 3.02  72  Table  Means, Standard  3  D e v i a t i o n s a n d t ^ - V a l u e s on Mean SEU S c o r e s f o r Low v e r s u s  High  Assertive Subjects  Group  Situation  Low A s s e r t i v e  High  Assertive  Mean  Mean  SSDD.  S.D.  t value  df  1  1.. 14  1..30  1..45  1..21  -0. . 93  58  .355  2  1.. 12  1..66  1..57  1..75  - 1 . . 02  58  .311  3  .34  1..83  .06  1..49  .64  58  . 523  4  -0. .04  1..51  -0. . 14  1.. 53  .26  58  .793  . 64  1,.07  .97  . 97  -0. .35  58  .730  Averaged Over Situations  73 Hypothesis  1  As T a b l e 3 r e v e a l s , l o w a n d h i g h a s s e r t i v e s u b j e c t s d i d not d i f f e r  i n t h e mean SEUs t h e y  situations,  o r on t h e i r  overall  generated  f o r each o f the four  mean SEU ( i . e . a v e r a g e d  over  situations). Hypoth',esfl's::2s 'a: For both  traditional  and f r e e f o r m models, c o r r e l a t i o n s  were computed  between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s t o t a l  for each r o l e  playing situation  for each analagous  situation  behavioural  a n d t h e mean SEU s h e  ( s e e T a b l e 4).  ratings  generated  Results indicated  t h a t o n e ' s mean SEU i s n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o n e ' s b e h a v i o u r noted  i n the corresponding  role  playing  Table  as  situations.  4  C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n Mean SEUs a n d B e h a v i o u r a l R a t i n g s o f o r S u b j e c t s i n T r a d i t i o n a l and Freeform Models Model  Tradi tional Situation  Freeform Situation  r_ b e t w e e n m e a n S E U and b e h a v i o u r a l r a t i n g s  1 2 3 Over A l l Si t u a t i o n s  0.223 -0.022 0.163 0.065  1 2 3 Over A l l S i t u a t i o n s  -0.133 -0.072 -0. 160 -0.222  74 Hypothesis  role  T o t e s t w h i c h o f t h e t w o SEU m o d e l s  best  playing  setting,  total with  3  role playing  i n the laboratory  scores  (across  t h e i r o v e r a l l mean SEU  each model. in  behaviour  As n o t e d  the t r a d i t i o n a l model  model.  between  these  (Z=1.069).  Neither  o f t h e two m o d e l s  the  laboratory  performed  .065  and -0.222 f o r s u b j e c t s  A F i s h e r ' s _r t o Z t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  associated  with  for  subjects  i n the  freeform  indicated that  the  i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  role playing  behaviour  in  A two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e model  conditions  correlated  two c o r r e l a t i o n s i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t  subjects'  setting.  subjects'  a single correlation for  4, t h e r_ was  difference  closely  subjects'  a l l s i t u a t i o n s ) were  to obtain  in Table  predicts  on o v e r a l l mean S E U s .  Results  Table  and  was assertion  as shown i n T a b l e  5  5  Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e t o I n v e s t i g a t e t h e E f f e c t s o f M o d e l a n d A s s e r t i o n C o n d i t i o n s o n M e a n SEU V a l u e s  Source  Sum  Model (A) A s s e r t i o n (B) I n t e r a c t i o n (AxB) Within C e l l s  .027 .125 .372 60.073  1 1 1 56  .027 .125 .372 1.073  Total  60.597  59  1.027  indicate  that neither  values.  Further,  of Squares  condition  there  was  df  Mean S q u a r e  F_  £  .025 .117 .347  .'875 .734 .558  a f f e c t e d t h e o v e r a l l mean  no e v i d e n c e  f o r an i n t e r a c t i o n  SEU  Table  6  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t_-Values o f O b s e r v e r s ' R a t i n g s B e h a v i o u r a l M e a s u r e s f o r Low v e r s u s H i g h A s s e r t i v e S u b j e c t s  on  Group Behavioural Measure  Rating  Low  Assertive  Mean  S.D  10.87 6.27 6.50 7.33 11.00  1 3 . 90 15.20 12.77 41.87  High  Assertive  Mean  S.D.  2. 92 3.16 3. 01 2.55 2.80  9. 97 7.70 7.33 8.20 11.90  3.43 3.88 3.44 2.62 2.40  4.61 4.46 3.81 10.87  1 5 . 23 16.33 13.53 45.10  4.53 4.57 4.71 11.69  t; Value  df  1.09 -1.57 -1.00 -1.30 -1.34  58 58 58 58 58  .279 . 122 .322 .199 . 187  -1. -0. -0. -1.  58 58 58 58  .263 .335 .491 .272  Scale  Eye C o n t a c t Hand R e l a x a t i o n Anxi ety E f f e c t i veness Assertion Content Situation  Tota11ed Situations  1 2 3 over  13 97 69 11  76 between  these  Hypothesis  two  conditions.  4  A s e r i e s of independant the  behavioural  between  t_ t e s t s was  d i f f e r e n c e s ( a s r a t e d b y t h e two  to  As T a b l e  6 r e v e a l s , low and  were n o t r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y behavioural  scales.  eye c o n t a c t , assertion existed  hand  content  between  combined.  4 were s c o r e d  different  i s , t h e r e was  role playing  assertive subjects  on any o f t h e  no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e i r  r e l a x a t i o n , anxiety, e f f e c t i v e n e s s or while  role playing.  F u r t h e r , no d i f f e r e n c e s  low and h i g h a s s e r t i v e s u b j e c t s  role played  uations  That  high  examine  observers)  l o w a n d h i g h a s s e r t i v e s u b j e c t s on t h e t h r e e  situations.  they  performed  i n how  adequately  e a c h o f t h e s i t u a t i o n s a n d on t h e t h r e e As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d ,  responses  sit-  to s i t u a t i o n  as y e s , no, maybe o r a l r e a d y d i d i t . T a b l e  Table Obtained  7  7  R e s p o n s e s t o S i t u a t i o n 4 f o r Low Versus High A s s e r t i v e S u b j e c t s  Group  Response  Low  Assertive  O b t a i ned Frequency Yes No Already Maybe Column  Did It  Total  20 5 2 3 30  High  Obtained P r o p o r t i on .667 .167 . 067 . 100 1.000  Assertive  Obtained Frequency  O b t a i ned Proportion  21:  6 0 3  .700 .200 .000 .100  30  1.000  77 Table Means, Standard  Deviations Low V e r s u s  Low Measure  8  and _t-Values  High  Assertive  High  Assertive Mean  S.D.  Mean  on S e v e r a l  Measures f o r  Subjects  Assertive S.D  t_-test Value  df  Assertion I nventory Gambrill Di s c o m f o r t  60  117.67  13.78  75.43  7.3  14.82  58  000  '"' G a m b r i l l Probabi1i ty  60  109.23  11.75  95.87  12.79  4.21  58  000  60 60 60  2. 3 2. 13 2. 13  .93 1.11 1.04  1.87 2.00 1.93  .68 . 91 1. 08  2.38 .51 .73  58 58 58  .021 .612 .468  30 30 30  ;.2.07 1.73 1.93  . 96 1.10 1.28  1. 53 1.33 2.07  .74 1.05 1.22  1.70 1.02 - 0 . 29  28 28 28  .100 .316 .773  Ten s i on R a t i ngs Situation 1 Si t u a t i on 2 S i t u a t i on 3  Peer Rati ngs S i t u a t i on 1 Situation 2 S i t u a t i on 3  78 shows t h a t on who  visual  o f 60  subjects,.41  perception.  agreed  t o do  Additional  to t e s t i n g  analyses  Table 8 summarizes several  measures for  Significant  scale,  response scale, subjects  t_ ( 5 8 )  reported  behaviour.  experiencing = 2.38,  2 and  = 1.70,  major on  the  series  data.  vs."-  high  assertive  on  the  p_<.000.  and  subjects.  As  probability  expected,  degree of  low  two  assertive  playing  not  low  to engage in a s s e r t i v e  subjects  differences  situation in the  1 and  assertive  behaviour  assert-  engaging  differ  situations  f o r peers to r a t e  No  low  while role playing  groups did  of  discomfort  a lower p r o b a b i l i t y of  Although  conducted  Gambri11-Richey  = 1 4 . 8 2 , p_<.000 a n d  more t e n s i o n  J3.C 0 0 0 .  hypotheses, a  2.  A  subjects  in situation  were found  for  high  effort  to f u r t h e r  assertive  outdomes l i s t e d  on  subjects  within  the  and  assertives  high  p o s i t i v e and  total  subjects,  investigate  1,  situations  did  not  cognitions  t_ - t e s t s w e r e p e r f o r m e d  questionnaires freeform  the  by  low  m o d e l . ..: As differ  versus Table  i n the  outcomes they perceived  9  high  low the  assertive  suggest'low  number of as  of on  negative,  resulting  1,  tension  3. In an  and  number  conditions.  low  while role  evidenced  less likely  t^ ( 2 8 )  assertion  r e s u l t s o f n u m e r o u s _t t e s t s  p_<.05, t h e  they experienced was  four  feeling a greater  in assertive  as  between the  the  = 4.21,  situations  trend  high  study  Subjects  t (58)  in a s s e r t i o n  t^ ( 5 8 )  the  r e s u l t s were obtained  discomfort  reported  versus  were performed  Versus High A s s e r t i v e  ive  low  existed  i n the  Analyses  of a d d i t i o n a l  on  to p a r t i c i p a t e  differences  t h i s i n the  In a d d i t i o n  Low  No  agreed  from  79 assertive  behaviour  indicates  that  sertives situation  i n the four  although  i n the u t i l i t y 4,%  situations.  low a s s e r t i v e s of the f i r s t  (2) = 6.23, £ ^ . 0 5 ,  utilities  o f the outcomes l i s t e d  for  the f i r s t  three  high assertives positive  listed  and n e u t r a l  differed  from  10  high as-  existed  by l o w a n d h i g h  For these  comparable  Table  outcome they l i s t e d f o r  no d i f f e r e n c e  the  situations.  Further,  assertives  situations,  proportions  in  low and  of negative,  outcomes.  Table 9 Means, Standard Low v e r s u s  Number o f Outcomes  Deviations  High A s s e r t i v e  and t>Values  on O u t c o m e s  Subjects Within  Low A s s e r t i v e  High A s s e r t i v e  Mean  Mean  S.D.  S.D.  Listed  Freeform  by  Model  3  t_ value  df  £  T o t a l Number of Outcomes  16.27  8/7 9  18.13  6.69  •0.65  28  .518  T o t a l Number of Negative Outcomes  6.73  4.53  8.53  3.54  •1.21  28  .235  T o t a l Number of P o s i t i v e Outcomes  9.73  11.15  7.87  4.49  0.60  28  .552  a  n = 15  8TO  Table Utilities  10  o f F i r s t O u t c o m e : L i s t e d b y Low V e r s u s H i g h S u b j e c t s W i t h i n F r e e f o r m Model  Assertive  Uti1ities Group  Negative Outcomes  Positive  Observed Frequency  Observed Frequency  Observed Proportion  Situation  Low A s s e r t i v e High A s s e r t i v e Column T o t a l % =0.0, df=l, 2  8 9 17  .267 .300 .567  7 6 13  %  2  = 2.S2,  Observed Proportion  Neutral  Outcomes  Total Row  Observed Frequency  Observed Proportion  0 0 0  . 000 . 000 . 000  15 15 30  1 4 5  . 033 . 133 .167  15 15 30  One  .233 .200 .433  £ = 1.00 Situation  Low A s s e r t i v e High A s s e r t i v e Column T o t a l  Outcomes  4 2 6  d f = 2, p_=.284  .133 . 067 . 200  10 9 19  Two  .333 .300 .633  si  Table  10 ( c o n t i n u e d )  Utilities Group  Negative Outcomes  Positive  Observed Frequency  Observed Frequency  Observed Proportion  Situation  Low A s s e r t i v e High A s s e r t i v e Column T o t a l X =.58, Z  7 9 16  . 233 .300 . 533  Observed Proportion  Neutral  Outcomes  Observed Frequency  Observed Proportion  1 1 2  .033 .033 .067  Total Row  Three  7 5 12  \233 .167 .400  15 15 30  Low A s s e r t i v e High A s s e r t i v e Column T o t a l 2 =6.23, df=2,  9 5 14 £=.044  , |  d f = 2, p_= . 747  i  Situation  2  Outcomes  .300 . 167 .467  6 5 11  Four  . 200 .167 .367  0 5 5  .000 .167 .167  15 15 30  82 Post  Hoc A n a l y s e s For  each  on E x t r e m e  s i t u a t i o n , numerous  mean SEUs o f o n l y e x t r e m e s on s e l f assertion those  s u b j e c t s who  (see Table high  3 generated  scored  11).  tension  Contrary  to expectations,  generate tion  f o r those  who p r o d u c e d  l a r g e r mean SEUs  c o n t e n t , .t(27) remaining  self  than  analyses  content  Traditional  Versus  Table several  Freeform  SEU v a l u e s  tension  the freeform  engage i n a s s e r t i v e behaviour £<.02. performed freeform  no s i g n i f i c a n t  and f r e e f o r m  r a t i n g s , peer  on any o f t h e s i t u a t i o n s .  subjects within  Table  £<.10.  in their  i n the traditional  With one e x c e p t i o n ,  Inventory,  asser-  mean  SEUs.  Subjects  between t r a d i t i o n a l  Assertion  poor  to  r a t i n g s and t h e a s s e r t i o n  significantly  measures f o r subjects  were found  was  a n d l o w s c o r e r s on  12 s u m m a r i z e s t h e r e s u l t s o f j t - t e s t s  conditions.  A trend  who e v i d e n c e d  that high  tension  scale, d i d not differ  those  = 2 . 1 6 , p_<.05,  10 a n d 1^(38) = 1 . 8 1 ,  revealed  ratings of behaviour,  than  superior assertion content those  1.,77.-,  role playing  l a r g e r mean SEUs  l o w l e v e l s o f t e n s i o n , t{24)  high  r a t i n g s and  levels of tension while  significantly  on t h e  a t the low and  o n l y w h e n t h e n ' r s w e r e 11 a n d 15 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  indicated  All  t^-tests were conducted  ratings of behaviour,  who e x p e r i e n c e d  who e x p e r i e n c e d but  those  content  situation  Scorers  Peers  conducted and  on  freeform  differences  subjects  on t h e  r a t i n g s a n d mean projected  that  c o n d i t i o n were more l i k e l y  to  i n s i t u a t i o n 3, 1^(28) =  -2.66,  13 i n d i c a t e s t h e r e s u l t s o f a s e r i e s o f t ^ - t e s t s  on t h e b e h a v i o u r a l subjects.  measures .  D i f f e r e n c e s between  f o r traditional  and  t h e two g r o u p s  were  Table Means, Standard  D e v i a t i o n s a n d t ^ - V a l u e s on Mean S E U . S c o r e s f o r Extreme  Dependent Measure  11  Scorers  Low S c o r e r s n  Mean  S .D.  SEUs f o r Self Ratings of Behaviour  High n  Scorers  Mean  Situation  S.D  • ;t Value  df  p  92  22  .369  •  1  12  1 . 0 6 1 .32  12  1.60  . 1.56  •  T e n s i on Ratings Method 1 Method 2  15 27  1.44 1 .22 1 . 2 9 1 . 19  11 22  1.74 1. 52  1. 39 1. 34  •  58 65  24 47  . 570 .518  A s s e r t i on Content Seale Method 1 Method 2  17 18  1. 58 1 . 16 1.54 1 . 13  12 22  1.25 1.07  1. 20 1. 24  - 0 . 74 - 1 . 25  27 38  .464 .219  SEUs f o r Self Ratings of Behaviour T e n s i on R a t i ngs Method Method  1 2  Assertion Content Scale Method 1 Method 2  12  . 98 1 . 38  Situation  2  12  1.73  1. 66  1. 21  22  . 237  15 27  1 . 4 5 1 .49 1.38 1 .59  11 22  1.43 1.76  1. 6 0 1. 98  - 0 . 03 74  24 47  .978 .464  17 18  1 . 1 8 1 . 96 1 . 1 8 1 .90  12 22  1.89 1.72  1. 87 1. 84  98 91  27 38  .336 .366  T h e two m e t h o d s r e f e r t o s p l i t t i n g g r o u p s b a s i s of d i f f e r e n t group s i z e (n) only.  a  i n two w a y s , on t h e  Table Dependent Measure  11  Low S c o r e r s Mean  (continued) High  S.D  Scorers  Mean  SEUs f o r S i t u a t i o n  t r Value  S.D  Z  df  £  3  Self Ratings of Behaviour  12  0. 08  1.55  12  0. 3 0  1 .73  0. 32  22  .750  Tension R a t i ngs Method 1 Method 2  15 27  - 0 . 55 - 0 . 07  1.84 2. 24  11 22  0. 78 0. 53  1 . 01 1 .17  2. 16 1. 14  24 47  . 041 .261  Assertion Content Scale Method 1 Method 2  17 18  - 0 . 26 - 0 . 22  1.55 1.52  12 22  0. 63 0. 57  2 .74 2 .08  1. 12 1. 34  27 38  . 274 . 187  SEUs f o r S i t u a t i o n Self Ratings of Behaviour  4  12  0.48  1.78  12  -0.48  2.46  -1.09  22  .288  T e n s i on R a t i ngs Method 1 Method 2  15 27  0.15 0.13  1.78 1.47  11 22  -0.04 -0.04  1.12 .88  -0.31 -0.48  24 47  .759 .634  Assertion Content Scale Method 1 Method 2  17 18  -0.86 -0.89  2.09 2.03  12 22  0.31 0.01  1.09 1.04  1.77 1.81  27 38  .088 .078  Mean SEUs O v e r a l l S i t u a t i o n s  o f ^ e h a v W  -  1 2  6 5  U  0  °  -  1 2  7 9  K  4  '  8  2 7  -  2 2  7 9 0  T e n s i on Ra  SlSL i Method 2  Assertion Content Scale Method 1 !'; M e t h o d 2  1 2 7  17 18  5  •  i-  63 6 8  .41 .40  1  •  0  0 7  .98 ..95  ii  9  •  2 2  12 22  98  9 4  1.02 .84  i-  0  96  1.34 1.14  -  4  -  83  89  1.42 1.30  -  24  -  4 7  27 38  4i4  3 8 0  .166 .201  85 Table  12  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t > V a l u e s Traditional  Measure  Versus  Freeform  Traditional  Freeform  Mean  Mean  S.D  on V a r i o u s M e a s u r e s F o r Subjects t^-test Values  df  S.D  Assertion Inventory Gambri11 Di s c o m f o r t  95.17  22.66  44  58  658  13.73  104.87  13.95  •1.30  58  200  97.93  G a m b r i 11 Probabi1i ty  100.23  Tension R a t i ngs 1 2 3  2 . 00 2 . 13 2 . 13  .87 . 97 1.07  2. 23 2. 0 0 1. 93  . .81 1.05 1. 05  - 1 . 07 .51 .73  58 58 58  .289 .612 .468  Situation 1 Situation 2 S i t u a t i on 3  1 .83 1 .72 1 . 56  .86 1.32 .86  1.75 1.25 2.67  .97 .45 1.44  .25 1.19 -2.66  28 28 28  .806 .245 . 013  1.42 1.54 .10 -0.22 .71  1.60 2.29 2. 29 1.97 1.35  -0.74 -0.88 .44 .67 -0.16  58 58 58 58 58  .463 .384 .660 . 505 .873  Situation Situation Situation P e e r ........ Rati ngs  F o r p e e r r a t i n g s > n = 18 f o r f r e e f o r m model  a  Mean SEU Scores Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3 Situation 4 Averaged Over Situations  1.18 1.15 .30 . 04 .67  .78 .78 .74 .83 .52  Table  Means,  Standard  Behavioural  Deviations  13  and t - V a l u e s  Measures f o r T r a d i t i o n a l  of Observers'  Versus Freeform  Ratings  on  Subjects  Model Behavioural Measure  Rating Eye  Traditional  Freeform  Mean  S.D  Mean  S.D  3.. 13 3.,82  11.,50  t V a l ue  df  £  2..92  -2..77  58  .008  6..97 7 ..30  3..39 3..30  0..04 -0,. 92  58 58  .972 .363  8..33  2..80  - 1 . .72  58  .091  Scale Contact  9..33  Hand R e l a x a t i o n Anxi e t y  7..00 6..53  Effectiveness Assertion Content  7..20  3.. 17 2.. 30  1 1 .. 10  2..48  11..80  2..76  - 1 . ,03  58  .306  13..63 15.. 33 12.. 13 4 1 .,10  4..46 4..44 4..36 1 1 ., 14  15..50 16..20 14., 17 4 5 .,87  4..58 4..62 3., 98 1 1 ., 15  -1, .60 -0..74 - 1 . .89 - 1 . .66  58 58 58 58  .115  Situation 1 2 3 Totalled Over Situations  .462 .064 . 103  87 significant  f o r / r a t i n g s of eye  and  is evidenced  a trend  - 1 . 7 2 , £<f.lO a n d -1.89, jK.10. the  for ratings  role playing  Subjects  role player  ;t(58)  = -2.77  , p_<-01  of e f f e c t i v e n e s s ,  t_(58) =  b e h a v i o u r f o r s i t u a t i o n 3, ; t ( 5 8 )  i n the  for a longer  what more s o c i a l l y  contact,  freeform  period  e f f e c t i v e and  condition  looked  at  of t i m e , were r a t e d  role played  as  somewhat  =  some-  better  3  than subjects Table  i n the  14  number o f low ipate  in the  freeform  assertive  o f 49 15  with  one  subjects study  e x i s t between who  agreed  the  to  for traditional  particversus  reported  the  in natural that  they  i f they  t^(37) = 2 . 2 6 ,  £<.05.  in Table,  m a l e s and  17,  no  no  f e m a l e s on  Assertion  settings  A s e r i e s of  (see  differences  while  would  than females  conditions.  differences  Gambrill  tension  11 m a l e s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n  and  behave  Table  Inventory,  m e a n SEU  t^-tests indicates  self  self  males ratings  ratings  values.  of  Males  significahtly.more:assertively situaion 3 in a natural  With respect  to b e h a v i o u r a l  significant differences of the  16)  females  e x i s t between  role playing,  encountered  any  the  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f m a l e s and  model  exception,  f e m a l e s on  behaviour  and  to t e s t f o r sex  of experienced  seen  differences  f e m a l e s and  d e t a i l s the  assertion  conducted  and  or  high  no  Females  Table the  that,  that  condition.  models.  A total  into  reveals  visual perception  Males Versus  study.  traditional  behavioural  setting,  measures,  were found  role playing  as  between measures.  88 Table Obtained  14  Responses to S i t u a t i o n Versus  Freeform  4 for Traditional Subjects  Model Traditional; .' Response  Obtained Frequency  Obtained Proportion  Low  X  . ..  Freeform Obtained Frequency  Obtained Proportion  Assertive Subjects  Yes No Already Did I t Maybe  11 2 1  .367 .067 .033  9 ".3 1  .300 .100 .033  1  .033  2  .067  Column Total  15  .500  15  .500  2  =0.733,  df=3,;  p_=0.865 High  Assertive Subjects  .333 . 100 .000  Yes No Already Did I t Maybe  11 3 0  .367 .100 .000  10 3 0  1  .033  2  .067  Column '.Total  15  .500  15  .500  % =.381, df=2, 2  p_=.827  89 Table  Distribution  o f M a l e s and Females Model  Group  High A s s e r t i ve Column Total  and  Condi t i ons  Fema1es  Obtained Proportion  Assertion  Assertive  into Assertion  Mai es Obtained Frequency  Low  15  O b t a i ned Frequency  O b t a i ned Proportion  Total Row  Conditions  6  .100  24  400  30  5  .083  25  417  30  . 183  49  817  60  11  Model  Conditions  Traditional Model  7  .117  23  383  30  Freeform Model  4  .067  26  433  30  . 183  49  817  60  Column Total  11  Table Means, Standard  16  D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e s f o r Males On S e v e r a l  Females  Measures Females  Mai es  Measure  Versus  Mean  S.D  n  Mean  S.D  t Value  df  p_  Assertion Inventory Gambri11 Di s c o m f o r t  11  102.91  31.67  49  95.12  22.08  .97  58  .334  Gambri11 Probabi1i ty  11  103.91  11.73  49  102.24  14.46  .36  58  .723  11 11 11  2.00 2.09 1.89  0.63 0.94 0.98  49 49 49  2.14 2.06 2.08  0.89 1.03 1.08  -0.50 0.09 -0.74,  58 58 58  617 930 460  2.33 1. 00 3.67  1 .53 0 . 00 1 . 16  36 36 36  1.94 1.61 1.92  1. 19 0. 99 1. 3 0  0. 53 - 1 . 05 2. 26  37 37 37  .597 .299 .030  0.93 0. 62 0. 06 0.04 0.41  0. 99 1. 01 0. 52 1. 18 0. 59  49 49 49 49 49  1.38 1.51 .23 -0.12 0.75  1.30 1.79 1.86 1. 58 1.08  -1.08 -1.58 -0.30 0.33 -0.99  58 58 58 58 58  .287 .119 .769 .743 .327  T e n s i on Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation3 S e l f - R a t i ngs Of B e h a v i o u r Situation Situation Situation  1 2 3  3 3 3  Mean SEU Values Situation S i t u a t i on Situation Situation Averaged Over Situations  Table  Means, Standard  Deviations  and t - V a l u e s  On B e h a v i o u r a l  Behavioural Measure  Rating  Males Mean  17  Role  (n=ll) S.D.  f o r Males Versus  Playing  Females  Females  Measures  (n=49)  t Value  df  p  Mean  S.D.  1 0 . 45 7. 20 6. 8 0 7. 69 1 1 . 39  3. 16 3. 7 0 3. 20 2. 49 2. 76  - 0 . 16 - 1 . 01 0. 61 0. 45 0. 38  58 58 58 58 58  .870 .318 .546 .651 .702  4. 64 4. 62 4. 08 11'. 18  - 0 . 45 0. 63 - 0 . 13 0. 02  58 58 58 58  .654 .531 .899 . 984  Scale  Eye C o n t a c t Hand R e l a x a t i o n Anx i e t y Effectiveness Assertion Content  1 0 . 27 6. 00 7. 45 8. 09 •11. 73  3. 52 2. 93 3. 48 3. 18 2. 01  t uation 1 2 3  Total led Over Situations  H \; o  14. 16. 13. 43.  00 55 00 55  : 4.47 4. 11 5. 25 1 2 . 44  14. 15. 13. 43.  69 59 18 47  92 Discussion  The and as  four  proposed  behaviours examined  hypotheses concerning  o f a s s e r t i v e and  the  nonassertive  from a decision-making  cognitions  individuals  perspective,  were  not  c o n f i rmed. As  a group, a s s e r t i v e subjects  mean S E U s . t h a n n o n a s s e r t i v e s . with  nonassertives)  positive do  they  rence  with  the  Arkowitz Cappe  o f F i e d l e r and  high  The  authors  speculated  the  Rathus a s s e r t i o n  selection outcomes  as  low  predicted,  that  by  and  within  the  findings  consistent  assertive  utilization study  An  subjects.  of  casts  the  examination  freeform  compared with  more n e g a t i v e  and  doubt with  of  the  the  disclosed  assertives, did  o u t c o m e s and i n the  model  of the  in fact associated  inventory.  p e r s o n s as  low  accord  and  Alden  a lack of  present  from a s s e r t i v e behaviour t  Clark  ( 1 9 7 6 ) and  the  are,  nor occur-  in  perhaps a function  yet  i n the  subjects  record  more  similarity,  i s not  (1975),  reported  t h i s was  inventory,  assertion  listed  Sarason Gottman  results obtained  o f an  this obtained  assertives  SEUs of h i g h  inventory  nonassertive  resulting  and  ( 1 9 7 5 ) who  between the  on w h e t h e r t h e  perceive  i n p u b l i c a t i o n ) , i t does c o n f i r m  Beach  Gambri11-Richey  not  compared  p r o b a b i l i t y to the  Although  S c h w a r t z and  differences  that  subjective  f i n d i n g s o f S m i t h and  (manuscript  (as  that  larger  r e s u l t i n g from a s s e r t i v e behaviour,  a higher  between  (1975),  be  I t may  of p o s i t i v e outcomes.  in cognitions  generate  a s s e r t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s do  consequences associate  did not  not,  l e s s p o s i t i v e ones  four situations.  93  Further,  an  analysis  of  come i n e a c h s i t u a t i o n ations,  the  negative,  nor  positive. and  first  high  was  outcome l i s t e d the  assertive  differences  utility  indicated  first  In f a c t , few  e x t r e m e l y on  the  assigned that,  by  contrary  differences  did  by  first  to  nonassertives  outcome l i s t e d  populations.  to the  out-  expect-  was  not  assertives,  e x i s t between  the  E v e n w h e n t h o s e who  low  scored  c e r t a i n measures were i n v e s t i g a t e d , s i g n i f i c a n t were not  revealed  between  the  SEUs of  high  and  low  scorers. The and  freeform  to her SEU  second  hypothesis  m o d e l s , an  role playing  theory  i t was  course of a c t i o n  behaviour) which generated association  would  of what m i g h t not  she  be  happen  i f she  that  highly  correlated  situation.  i n the  The  the  i n the  study  individual's  behaviours  S E U s may  Thus,  and  an  perception  whether  or  situations.  to act  in a  behaviour, for  i f she  role playing  study.  would  to s u b s t i t u t e  rather  SEU  As  ( 1 9 7 8 ) s t u d y , , S EU s w e r e  attempted  However, a r e l a t i o n s h i p  present  related  nonassertive  value.  intent  situation. her  SEU  or  herself  Beach  s p e c i f i e s one's i n t e n t i o n ,  and  highly  a subject  role playing  intent  and  be  traditional  between a person's  asserted  assessment of  actions  that  largest  direct  subject's  will  (i.e. assertive  with a subjectis  an  SEU  expected  F i e d l e r and  present  f o r both the  in analagous situations.  demonstrated  a c t u a l l y d o e s so  Recall  that  individual's  behaviour  suggests,  choose the  stated  than  a more behavioural  i n d i c a t i n g .the  a c t u a l l y were i n  b e t w e e n an  b e h a v i o u r was  particular  not  that  individual's  indicated  be m o r e c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d  in with  the one's  94 behavioural  intent  than with one's  role  as m e a s u r e d  by s c a l e s o f e y e c o n t a c t , h a n d r e l a x a t i o n , a n x i e t y ,  effectiveness  and a s s e r t i o n c o n t e n t .  behaviour  s i m p l y n o t be r e l a t e d  may  playing  behaviour,  Alternatively, assertive to any p e r c e p t i o n s o r  predictions  o n e may  have r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e outcomes  behaviour.  Perhaps i n " a s s e r t i o n " s i t u a t i o n s ,  not c o n s i d e r the consequences of t h e i r  of her  individuals  a s s e r t i v e or  do  nonas-  sertivebehaviour. Hypothesis  t h r e e s t a t e d t h a t t h e f r e e f o r m SEU m o d e l  best p r e d i c t subjects' role that outcomes personally  generated  playing behaviour.  r e l e v a n t to s u b j e c t s than  traditional  subjects.  role  play less  this  latter  receiving  less  effectively  Perhaps those  e m p h a s i s on t h o s e  have been would listed  than  assertives.  not confirmed.  i n the t r a d i t i o n a l  listed  In o t h e r w o r d s ,  not have c o n c e i v e d  "non-meaningful"  i n terms of t h e i r  out-  procedure that  outcomes  D i f f e r e n c e s were versus  freeform  conditions placed  which they  traditional  and  As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d ,  deemed  s u b j e c t s may they  not themselves  o f , simply because these outcomes  on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  important  of  more n e g a t i v e outcomes, a s s o c i a t e  i n f l u e n c e d to c o n s i d e r those outcomes  comes, these  be m o r e  to the occurrence of these outcomes,  e x p e c t a t i o n was  irrelevant.  the  expected  n o t o b t a i n e d i n t h e mean SEUs o f t r a d i t i o n a l subjects.  a list  b y o t h e r s , a s was  F u r t h e r , i t was  n o n a s s e r t i v e s would generate a higher probability  suggested  i n the f r e e f o r m c o n d i t i o n would  comes w h i c h had been g e n e r a t e d for  I t was  would  were  R e l a t i v e to more p e r t i n e n t o u t o n e s may utility  have been r a t e d as n o t  and i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y  to  95 occur  in assertion situations.  nonassertives from  d i d not  list  a s s e r t i v e a c t i o n , nor  consequences.  the f r e e f o r m  more n e g a t i v e  groups  p o s s i b l e outcomes r e s u l t i n g from  more p o s i t i v e  "objectively" consider  assertion.  That  not  negative  consequences, nor would a s s e r t i v e s expect o u t c o m e s as  Taken t o g e t h e r , minimization culminating predict  in the  1973  persons, anxious  from  and  inability  two  research  (e.g. has  d i f f e r e n c e s between low  for  revealed  Contrary  and  and  high a s s e r t i v e and  and  high  present  assertives  and  nonassertives  behavioural  confirms  Alden  the evidence  and  Cappe, manuscript  suggests  study.  study,  to a s s e s s  which  assert-  competence  of  other i n v e s t i g a t i o n s  of a s s e r t i v e n e s s in u n i v e r s i t y populations 1976;  date-  assertive subjects  a s a m o r e n a t u r a l m e a n s by w h i c h u n i f o r m i t y i n the  with  high a s s e r t i v e s  was  This  existence  to p r e d i c t i o n s , b e h a v i o u r a l  between low  numbers o f low  and  e s t a b l i s h e d the  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n  iveness.  thereby  Miller  volunteered devised  the  models,  Eisler,  three r o l e p l a y i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n the equal  behaviour.  behaviour.  university students.  Similarly,  fav-  of e i t h e r to more a c c u r a t e l y  G r e e n w a l d , 1977)  were not  only  assertive  especially in psychiatric populations  differences  results in  speculations could account  previous  of behavioural  the  these  to r e s u l t  of the d i s p a r i t y between the  Finally,  on  likely  role playing  Hersen,  that a s s e r t i v e behaviour  i s , nonassert-  i v e s may  ourable  model,  consequences r e s u l t i n g  did assertives favour  P o s s i b l y , both  speculate  Within  (Schwartz  in publication).  t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s between the  and To  Gottman, date,  role playing  96  behaviour  o f h i g h and  date-anxious  n o n a s s e r t i v e and methodological noted,  assertive individuals,  i s s u e s must i n i t i a l l y differing  endorse  statements  of t h e i r  and  irrational expect  behaviour.  in that the focus Fiedler  and  be c o n s i d e r e d .  to u n d e r r a t e  beliefs,  from  i s upon e x p e c t e d  i n the SEUs o f low v e r s u s  these  two  do  their  those  typically  studied,  a c t i o n s of a s s e r t i v e behaviour. to demonstrate  differ-  not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y  T h i s i s not to say  c o g n i t i o n s "tapped"  Those  light  on  t h e SEU  indirect.  our u n d e r s t a n d i n g i t .  interpretation  by t h e  nonassertive persons.  model  SEU  T h i s m o d e l , t h e n , may  be n o t e d  thinkMoreover,  " t a p s " c o g n i t i o n s i s somewhat  of a s s e r t i v e thought,  It should  the  in  n o t be p e r t i n e n t t o t h e s t u d y o f t h e  i n g p r o c e s s e s o f a s s e r t i v e and  con-  that  assertion  situations.  perhaps  perceive expected  n o n a s s e r t i v e s are s i m i l a r  c o m p l e x and  social  others  c o g n i t i o n s o f a s s e r t i v e s and  t h e m e a n s by w h i c h  the  high a s s e r t i v e persons,  of a s s e r t i n g oneself.  m o d e l , h o w e v e r may  prev-  In t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e c o g n i t i o n s  Beach^(1978) also f a i l e d  groups  As  engage i n n e g a t i v e  n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s by  ences  sequences  a host of p e r t i n e n t  c o g n i t i o n s have been r e p o r t e d i n  examined a r e somewhat d i s t i n c t  As  demonstrated  the l a c k of o b t a i n e d d i f f e r e n c e s between  in that n o n a s s e r t i v e s tend  performance, self  h a s y e t t o be  and  populations.  In i n t e r p r e t i n g  literature  assertives within psychiatric  p o p u l a t i o n s , but  i n 1e s s c l i n i c a l  iously  low  in fact,  r a t h e r than  cloud shed  that a conditioned anxiety  of n o n a s s e r t i v e behaviour  s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d  as  97 an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n (Alden  and Cappe, m a n u s c r i p t  Evidence two  explanation  i n p u b l i c a t i o n ; Curran  i s n o t a v a i l a b l e as y e t t o f a v o u r  1979).  e i t h e r of these  hypotheses. Along  and  a behavioural  Gottman  that nonassertive in t h e i r authors for  ability  nonassertion  students  and Cappe  Schwartz and Gottman  evidence  from  h a s a s y e t t o be c l e a r l y Along  behavioural  beyond o n e - h a l f  As T a b l e  surface only assertive  Although  T h o s e who and  qualified  about  this  i n an even more e x t r e m e  scored  Richey's  as p a r t i c i p a n t s  one s t a n d a r d  represents  c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o u r a l  i n the deviation  a limited  d i f f e r e n c e s would  sample o f high and low  subjects.  In r e t r o s p e c t , t h e t h r e e  s i t u a t i o n s chosen  to r o l e p l a y were n o t as p r o b l e m a t i c particular  populations  8 documents, subjects  on t h e a v e r a g e ,  t h e mean o f 9 5 . 0 .  and Cappe  that university  deviation of Gambrill  in the present  sample scored  explanation  e s t a b l i s h e d i n non-  populations.  r a t i n g o f 95.0  study.  these  c o m p e t e n c e may b e s u p e r i o r t o t h a t  in the general standard  As  deficit  a s i m i l a r vein, Alden  ( 1 9 7 5 ) mean d i s c o m f o r t  sample, perhaps  reported  assertives  may n o t b e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f n o n a s s e r t i v e  of nonassertives  from  in publication)  (1976)  f o r a behavioural  i n p u b l i c a t i o n ) have s u g g e s t e d  that their  final  (manuscript  t o c o n s t r u c t an a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e .  populations.  (manuscript  the r e s u l t s of Schwartz  subjects d i d not differ  concluded,  clinical  dimension,  (1976) and Alden  have been r e p l i c a t e d .  in  to a cognitive deficit  sample.  as e x p e c t e d  An a n a l y s i s was u n d e r t a k e n  f o r subjects f o r this of the discomfort  98 probability  scores  endorsed  by  s u b j e c t s on  ( ( G a m b r i l l.-Richey s i t u a t i o n s number comparable  to the  reported  (a  o f 1 o r 2 on  eight reported (a  score  smoking  the  the  experiencing  notable  S i m i l a r l y , 47  scores  corresponding  15 e x p e r i e n c e d  situation. ferences  Forty  subjects  only  in this situation  reported  o r no d i s c o m f o r t  the  while  only  discomfort.  to the essay ' s i t u a t i o n are  subjects felt  s u r p r i s i n g then,  d i d n o t emerge between low  most s u b j e c t s  discomfort  little  o r no  much o r v e r y much d i s c o m f o r t  I t i s not  were  non-problematic  e x p e r i e n c i n g much o r ••very much  s o m e w h a t v a r i e d i n t h a t 27 while  1) w h i c h  assertion inventory), while  s i t u a t i o n to pose l i t t l e  Discomfort  and  p a r t y s i t u a t i o n as  of 4 or 5).  three reported  26  selected role playing situations.  subjects score  15,  three situations  in  discomfort this  that behavioural  and  high  i n d i c a t e d f e e l i n g s of comfort  dif-  a s s e r t i v e s as when i n  these  t h r e e a s s e r t i o n s i t u a t i o n s . P e r h a p s a more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g t a s k would they  involve subjects find The  of  validity  o f r o l e p l a y i n g t a s k s as a c c u r a t e  interpersonal behaviour  role  to' be  situations.  been q u e s t i o n e d .  of female In a n o t h e r ,  and  and  Turner  Lamparski  t o be o n l y m o d e r a t e l y u n i v e r s i t y students study,  measures  In  studying  (1979)  h i g h l y r e l a t e d to behaviour  B e l l a c k , Hersen  playing behaviour behaviour  has  p a t i e n t s , B e l l a c k , Hersen  p l a y i n g not  situations. role  s i t u a t i o n s which  problematic.  psychiatric  the  r o l e playing those  (1979)  in in  found vivo  reported  c o r r e l a t e d with in  B e l l a c k , Hersen  naturalistic and  Turner  99 (1978) noted was As  not  related  Bellack,  process  role playing  to s u b j e c t s '  H e r s e n and  of p s y c h i a t r i c  responses  Turner  of r o l e p l a y i n g ,  p r o d u c e s an be  that the  i n two  an  natural  settings.  (1979) suggested, perhaps  associated  with  the  unique response  i d i o s y n c r a t i c response pattern,  considered  patients  and  i n v a l i d t e s t of s o c i a l s k i l l s  thus in  demands,  should  interpersonal  situations. In  speculating  behavioural  differences  ive samples, scales  possible  the  m u s t be  between the  v a l i d i t y of the  considered.  evidence for behavioural tions,  factors  i n an  influencing  validity  of the  examined.  Pearson  probability.  normal  would  .87  clinical  and  Richey  group  and  presented  itself,  before  and  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  independantly  rating lack  assessed  of  popula-  be  sensitive  assess  all potential,  reliability  inventory and and as  post .81  the  p e r f o r m a n c e on  on  g r o u p and  the  response  ability  need f o r a d d i t i o n a l  be  tests  for  after training.  scores  and  should  to r e f l e c t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  (1975) acknowledged the  not  r e s u l t s , the  for discomfort are  assert-  behaviour.  c o r r e l a t i o n s between pre were  and  in non-clinical  scales  obtained  V a l i d i t y data  population  to c l a r i f y  these  of  behavioural  to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between a c l i n i c a l  the  and  differences  Gambr i 11-Ri chey a s s e r t i o n  f o r a s a m p l e o f 49  inventory  selected  e f f o r t t o i d e n t i f y and the  lack  non-assertive  dimensions of a s s e r t i v e  Finally,  f o r the  However, i n view of the  i t is unlikely that  to r e l e v a n t  explanations  of  the  a within Gambrill data  inventory  c r i t e r i o n tasks.  100 In b r i e f evidence  summary, t h e n ,  fordiffering  the present  the full  d i d not secure  cognitions or behavioural  between a s s e r t i v e and n o n a s s e r t i v e appreciate  study  populations.  i m p l i c a t i o n s of these  competence In o r d e r t o  results,  a number  o f p o s s i b l e i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l es, w e r e o u t l i n e d .  Finally, evidenced in  neither the traditional  an a b i l i t y  The u t i l i t y  however, been r e p e a t e d l y demonstrated  planning  d e c i s i o n s (Beach,  1976), o c c u p a t i o n a l  SEU m o d e l s  to predict subjects' role playing  three assertion s i t u a t i o n s .  has,  or freeform  preference  o f t h e SEU model regarding  Townes, Campbell of students  and  and F i t c h ,  the concept Yet,  (Holmstrom and  cognitions SEU  notion  f o r the purpose  of understanding  situations.  They simply  behaviour.  to their  analogy  the  populations.  o f how p e o p l e  reason i n  may n o t c o n s i d e r  Conversations  possible  held with  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study  The  subjects  confirmed  this  t h a t t h i n k i n g i n t h e S E U •'.manner w a s " f o r e i g n " t o t h e m  a t t i m e s , - d i f f i c u l t t o r e l a t e t o . When c o n f r o n t e d  assertion and  f r a m e w o r k may b e a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e  p o s s i b l y a poor  outcomes o f t h e i r subsequent  ( P o l l a r d and M i t c h e l l , 1972).  o f a s s e r t i v e and n o n a s s e r t i v e  i s very  assertion  and  power  t h i s d e c i s i o n making to adopt  preferences  1975) and, as a framework f o r s t u d y i n g  of social  perspective  birth  Keating,  Beach, 1973; M i t c h e l l and Beach, 1976), academic (Muchinsky  behaviour  s i t u a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s may s i m p l y  a c t or not t o .  decide  w i t h an  t o "go a h e a d "  Some s u b j e c t s , e s p e c i a l l y a s s e r t i v e o n e s  1.01  spoke of a "gut In c o n c l u s i o n qualify  as  behaviour. cognitions  then,  the  SEU  In v i e w o f t h e  that  simpler  and  had  model  a c o g n i t i v e model  of a s s e r t i v e  recommended lend  f e e l i n g " they  situations.  their  findings  interpersonal  to date concerning  unassertive- populations,  m o d e l s be  behavi  does not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y  for explaining  insight into understanding  personal  which d i r e c t e d  pursued  assertive  i n an  the i t is  e f f o r t to  behaviour  in i n t e r -  102  Appendix A THE ASSERTION INVENTORY  M  Name _ Phone No. Many people experience difficulty ln handling interpersonal, situations requiring them to assert themselves in some way, for example, turning down a request, asking a favor, giving someone a compliment, expressing disapproval or approval, etc. Please indicate your degree of discomfort or anxiety i n the space provided before each situation listed below. Utilize the following scale to indicate degree of discomfort. 1 2 3 4 5  = none = a little = a fair amount = much =• very much  Then, go over the l i s t a second time and indicate after each item the probability or likelihood of your displaying the behavior i f actually presented with the situation.* For example, i f you rarely apologize when you are at fault, you would mark, a "4" after that item. Utilize the following scale to indicate your response. 1 2 3 4 5  a  = always do i t . usually do i t = do i t about half the time = rarely do i t = never do i t  *Note. It i s important to cover your discomfort ratings (located i n front of the items) while indicating response probability. Otherwise, one rating may contaminate the other and a realistic assessment of your behavior i s unlikely. To correct for this, place a piece of paper over your discomfort ratings while responding to the situations a second time for response probability. Degree of discomfort  Response probability  Situation  1.  Turn down a request to borrow your car  2.  Compliment a friend  3.  Ask a favor of someone  4.  Resist sales pressure  5.  Apologize when you are at fault  6.  Turn down a request for a meeting or a date  7.  Admit a fear and request consideration  3.  Tell a person you are intimately involved with when he/she says or does something the bothers you  ,  Appendix A  D e g r e e  •  R e s p o n s e S i t u a t i o n  9.  '  .  '  '  A s k  f o r  a  10.  A d m i t  i g n o r a n c e  11.  T u r n  12.  A s k  13.  T u r n  14.  A s k  1 5 .  I n i t i a t e  16.  C o m p l i m e n t  down  a  o f f  '  a r e a  t o  b o r r o w  a  t a l k a t i v e  •  w i t h  a  a r e  p e r s o n o r  y o u  18.  Y o u r  i n i t i a l  r e q u e s t  f o r  down  a n d  a s k  p e r s o n  A d m i t  y o u  2 0 .  A p p l y  2 1 .  A s k  2 2 .  T e l l  2 3 .  R e q u e s t  f o r  f o r  a  j o b  w h e t h e r  y o u  s o m e o n e  h a v e  t h a t  o p e n l y  b e h a v i o r  2 6 .  E x p r e s s  a  p e r s o n  m e e t i n g f o r  p o i n t  i n  w i t h  a  i s  .  t u r n e d  l a t e r  u n d e r  t i m e  d i s c u s s i o n  y o u  a r e  R e s i s t  s e x u a l  someone  t h e m  w h e n  a  s u c h  i s  n o t  r e s t a u r a n t  t h e  p e r s o n  h i s / h e r  c r i t i c i s m .  i t e m s ,  o p i n i o n  p e r s o n  l i k e  s e r v i c e  d e f e c t i v e  a n  e . g . ,  t h a t  t a l k i n g  s t o r e  d i f f e r s  f r o m  o r  r e s t a u r a n t  t h a t  o f  t o  o v e r t u r e s  T e l l  t h e  s o m e t h i n g  t h e '  w h e n  y o u  a r e  n o t  i n t e r e s t e d  28.  •'  •'  w i t h  a  •  i n  o f f e n d e d  y o u  e . g . ,  o f  R e t u r n  a  s t r a n g e r  '  D i s c u s s  2 5 .  2 7 .  a b o u t  e x p e c t e d  y o u r  d a t e  a  c l a r i f i c a t i o n  f o r t h c o m i n g ,  2 4 .  o r  t h e  c o n f u s i o n  a s k  •  r o m a n t i c a l l y  i n t e r e s t e d  m e e t i n g  .  c r i t i c i s m  c o n v e r s a t i o n  w i t h  a  money  f r i e n d  c o n s t r u c t i v e  a  •  q u e s t i o n s  R e q u e s t  a n d  •  some  17.  19.  '  i n  r e q u e s t  p e r s o n a l  f o r  p r o b a b i l i t y  r a i s e  i n v o l v e d  ;  103  o f  d i s c o m f o r t  •  (continued)  •  p e r s o n t h a t  w h e n i s  y o u  u n f a i r  f e e l t o  h e / s h e  y o u  h a s  d o n e •  Appendix A (continued)  Degree o f discomfort  104  Response probability  Situation 29.  Accept a date  30.  T e l l someone good news about  31.  R e s i s t pressure to d r i n k  32.  R e s i s t a s i g n i f i c a n t person's u n f a i r demand  33.  Quit a job  34.  R e s i s t p r e s s u r e t o " t u r n on"  35.  D i s c u s s openly w i t h the person h i s / h e r c r i t i c i s m o f your work  36.  Request  37.  Receive compliments  315.  Continue t o converse w i t h someone who d i s a g r e e s w i t h you  39.  T e l l a f r i e n d o r someone w i t h whom you work when he/she says o r does something t h a t b o t h e r s you  40.  Ask a person who i s annoying you i n a p u b l i c s i t u a t i o n to stop  yourself  • - "'• '  t h e r e t u r n o f borrowed  items  105 Appendix  Description  1.  You  this  2.  o f S i t u a t i o n s Read to S u b j e c t s i n P a r t I  a r e a t a p a r t y and  s a m e sex';  You  You  person  s e e an  are t r y i n g  and  interesting  person  to d e c i d e whether to  begin talking  are working  group  B  with  the  approach  them.  on a p r o j e c t w i t h a f e w  people.  i s d i s c u s s i n g whether or not smoking  a l l o w e d d u r i n g work s e s s i o n s .  of  You  The  should  are trying  be  to  decide  whether or not to express y o u r s e l f .  3.  An  acquaintance  approaches  i n a jam--he has he s a y s  to hand  he d o e s n ' t  feel  you  one  t h a t you  wrote  because  he'd  like  to submit  i s unreasonable  He  for a course  are trying  to  but  asks i f last  i t for his course. and  he's  for a course  l i k e w r i t i n g one.  borrow  this  explains that  i n an e s s a y  he c a n  feel  and  year  You  decide  whether or not to r e f u s e .  4.  You  have been h i r e d  approaches  you  work which  is clearly  trying  and  t o do  some w o r k f o r a p r o f e s s o r .  asks you  t o do  him  not p a r t of your  a  favoui—some job.  to decide whether or not to r e f u s e .  You  are  He  106 Appendix C  Questions Asked of Subjects i n Part I  What f a c t o r s , w o u l d y o u c o n s i d e r when c h o o s i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t to a s s e r t y o u r s e l f i n these s i t u a t i o n s ?  What w o u l d y o u r  g o a l s be i n t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s ?  What w o u l d y o u e x p e c t  If you expressed  What w o u l d  How w o u l d  the effects  o f e x p r e s s i n g y o u r s e l f to be?  o r a s s e r t e d y o u r s e l f , what would  the other person  the other person  How w o u l d y o u f e e l  happen?  do?  feel?  i f you a s s e r t e d ( d i d not a s s e r t ) y o u r s e l f ?  107 Appendix Categories  1.  Good f e e l i n g s a b o u t would not  2.  of Subject  I'd  feel  feel badly  would not  feel  Responses  myself/I'd  badly/I'd about  feel  D  feel  good e x p r e s s i n g  happy,  myself/negative  good/disappointed  in  e v a l u a t i o n s about  4.  I'm  5.  Other  response  etc.  person  would appreciate/welcome/be  t o my  self/  myself  P o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s by o t h e r s / r e s p e c t  person  myself/  better  3.  h e l p i n g the other  in Part I  positive in  action  6.  Considerations  of others'  appearance/physical  7.  Tolerance/acceptance/understanding  8.  Avoid  by o t h e r s  attraction o f my  action  c o n f l i c t / g o o d s p o r t / e a s i e r t o g i v e i n / s t a y on  good  terms o f f e n d o t h e r s / a v o i d d e a l i n g with s i t u a t i o n / d e a l with 9.  i t later/leave situation  General others:  concern I'm  or f e a r of negative  a snob, f o o l i s h ,  etc.  10.  General  f e e l i n g s o f r e j e c t i o n by  11.  Not  wanting  12.  I'd  feel  guilty  13.  I'd  feel  embarassed  14.  I'd g e t  angry/annoyed/aggressive  15.  I'd  feel  anxious  16.  I'd  feel  uncomfortable/awkward  17.  I'd  feel  18.  I'd  feel  to h u r t  resentful shy  e v a l u a t i o n s o f me  others  others  by  Appendix 19.  I gave i n too  20.  T h i n k i n g o f my  21.  D o n ' t w a n t t o be  22.  Concern  23.  Resentment of  24.  Wishing  25.  I'd  about  it's  inadequacy/insecurity looked  a t / c e n t r e of a t t e n t i o n  others getting  angry/hosti1e  others t h a t I was  27.  Considering whether person's  28.  How  29.  C o n s i d e r a t i o n of what o t h e r person  are more  when  interesting/worthwhile/knowledgeable request/behaviour  s t r o n g l y does other person  feel  about  the  w o u l d be  was  inappropriate  issue? like/are  interesting? etc.  30.  I'm  being  31.  My  concerns  32.  R e c o g n i t i o n and  33.  D e s i r e to e x h i b i t r i g h t  34.  Afterwards  taken  advantage  or thoughts  as  speak  about  my  understanding  d w e l l i n g on  behaved  of/used/manipulated' rights/needs/values/abilities  others'  rights/needs  or c o r r e c t behaviour/I  should...  situations/sorryfor actions/  I should  have/consider  35.  I can't  36.  Don't c a r e what they would  37.  I'd f e e l  38.  Miscellaneous  39.  Statement  40.  Negative  r e a c t i o n s of others  41.  Thoughts  r e g a r d i n g the other person's  42.  relieved  over  Others  not  different  t o be o u t o f t h e s i t u a t i o n / f e e l  26.  they  108  easily  I w a s n ' t t h i s way,  like  D (continued)  for others/don't  future situations  k n o w how  they would  react  think  n e g a t i v e l y towards  other person/lose  r e s p e c t f o r them  category  of one's l i k e s  or d i s l i k e s  e.g.  towards  power/position  and/or  subsequent  T h i n k i n g o f my  social  skills  I don't  smoking  me relative status/authority/  consequences  (positive  like  or  o f my  negative)  actions  Appendix Feelings  them  109  a b o u t m y s e l f e . g . I'm n o t h a p p y  C o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f how m u c h know  D (continued)  I like  o t h e r / c a r e about  them/  //o  Appendix E Traditional  SEU Q u e s t i o n a i r r e P a r t  PHONE  T h i s  NO:  q u e s t i o n n a i r e  T h e r e  a r e  g o i n g  o n  P a r t  3  p a r t s  t o  t h e  A f t e r T h i s  r e a d y o u  t h e  h a v e  l i s t  y o u r s e l f r e s u l t  p a r t y t h e  t h e  N e x t , A i s  i n  By  i n  q u e s t i o n n a i r e — p l e a s e  i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m p l e t e  e a c h  s i t u a t i o n s . p a r t  b e f o r e  i n  y o u  +1  t h e  4  e x t r e m e l y i n d i c a t e  r a t i n g  o f  -1  6,  b e s i d e  a  d i d  n u m b e r  l i k e  t o  o u t c o m e  c o n s i d e r  t h e  o n l y  o n e  B e s i d e  e a c h  o u t c o m e  P l e a s e  do  is*  f o r  n o t  we  t h e  o f  p a g e s  4 , 5 o n  a n d p a g e  t o  r e q u e s t  2.  t h e s e  c o n v e r s a t i o n  f o r  w o r k ,  e x p r e s s i n g  i n  t u r n i n g  y o u r  o p i n i o n  t h e  s i t u a t i o n .  1  a  1 0 0 i f  y o u  b e t w e e n  1  100  a n d  o f  " I f  I  50  e x p r e s s  i s  e i t h e r i s  h i g h l y  t o  g u i d e  e a c h  t h e s e  o f  t h e  r a t i n g s  w i l l  a  d o n ' t  down  t h i s  5  i f  w i l l  o u t c o m e  c h o o s e  a  w i l l  n u m b e r  a n d ,  f o r  P a r t  C.  w r i t e  d o w n  o n  i t l e s s  t o  g o i n g  of  o u t c o m e  o r  t h e  y o u  r a t i n g t h e  k n o w  t h a t  o f  s i t u a t i o n  A  o f  l i s t e d ,  and  w r i t e  q u e s t i o n  t h a t  r a t i n g  p l e a s e  o u t c o m e s  i n  o c c u r ? "  u n l i k e l y y o u ,  o c c u r  3 , 4 , 5  l i k e l i h o o d T h e  l i k e l y  y o u  a n d  b e f o r e  t h e  m y s e l f  t h a t  w a y ,  i t  " E X P R E S S I N G "  h i g h l y  i n d i c a t e s  go  w o u l d  p a g e s  y o u r s e l f .  o u t c o m e  i t  l i s t e d On  i n d i c a t e  e x p r e s s  r a t i n g s  f o r  F i n i s h  w o u l d  t h i s  o u t c o m e  e n t i t l e d  d i d  t h i n k  t h i n k  t h e s e  i s  t h a t  c o u l d  B  w h i c h  y o u  y o u  r a t i n g  t h a t  c o l u m n  y o u r s e l f  U s i n g  s c e n e s .  i n  a n d  o c c u r .  4  e a c h  e a c h  l i k e l i h o o d  n o t — i t  i n d i c a t e s  t h a t  i n  i n d i c a t e s  o c c u r , o r  i s  o c c u r r i n g  a s k i n g  m o r e  o c c u r  t h a t i n  i s  i t  y o u r s e l f  o u t c o m e  b e t w e e n  b e  o r  w i l l  e x -  y o u r s e l f a  95  p r o b a b l e  e a c h  o u t c o m e  w h a t  6.  c o n s e q u e n c e s  b e g i n n i n g  o r  S  d e c i d i n g  e x p r e s s i n g  e s s a y  3  OUTCOMES  w h e n  p o s s i b l e  m e a n  l i s t e d  y o u ' d  t h e  b y  t o  t h i s  o u t c o m e  I f  i s  y o u  b e +4  a  a  n u m b e r  i n  l i s t e d .  v a l u e  o u t c o m e o f  i s  v a l u e  A  t h e T h e n  e a c h c o l u m n go  o n  i s  t o  w h i l e  +4.  y o u .  a l l  C  F i l i a l l y ,  p o s i t i v e ,  b e t w e e n  (A  +4  P a r t  o u t c o m e  i n d i c a t e s  s h o u l d  f o r  y o u , (A  do  - 4  s c e n e s .  o r  a  t o  r a t i n g o f  0  i f  w h a t  t h e s e  100 y o u  C  d i d  y o u r s e l f i s  t h e  t i t l e d  w h i c h NOT i s ,  "NOT  w o u l d  E X P R E S S I N G "  i n d i c a t e  e x p r e s s " I f  I  l i k e l i h o o d  r a t i n g s  f o r  e a c h  ( P l e a s e  u s e  t h e  o f  d i d t h a t t h e  same  t h e  l i k e l i h o o d  y o u r s e l f . NOT t h i s  o u t c o m e  o u t c o m e s  r a t i n g  P a r t  s c h e m e  l i s t e d . " I M P O R T A N C E " . B.  T  i  H  A  N  K  w i l l  Y O U  a s  a  o f  t h e  m y s e l f  l i s t e d ,  n e g a t i v e .  t i t l e d  H e r e ,  e x p r e s s  i n d i c a t e s  o u t c o m e  t o  o f  t i o n ,  C o l u m n  a n d  a s k  - 4 .  -1  i n 1  o c c u r r i n g  o f  r a t i n g  p o s i t i v e  f o r  +1  f o r  n e g a t i v e  n e g a t i v e ;  n e g a t i v e ) ,  - 4  n e g a t i v e  t h e  l i s t e d i t  n e i t h e r  n e g a t i v e  a  p o s i t i v e ,  m i l d l y  a n d  o r  h a p p e n ; f e e l  i t  o u t c o m e  i s  p o s i t i v e t o  m i l d l y  a s s i g n i n g  o u t c o m e  b e t w e e n  i s  l i k e  a s s i g n i n g  e x t r e m e l y  w r i c e e a c h  we  I f  o u t c o m e  r a t i n g ,  f o r  b y  n e g a t i v e t n e  (2)  o r  p r o f e s s o r ' s  o u t c o m e  p o s i t i v e , / . h o w  a n d  h a p p e n .  p o s i t i v e t h e  l i s t  o f  h o w  e x p r e s s  s i t u a t i o n .  o j t c o m e  C h o o s e  t h i s  r e q u e s t  s o m e t h i n g  i n d i c a t e ^  t h e  t h e  t o p  c o n s i d e r  y o u r s e l f "  d o w n  t h e  t h e  may  y o u r s e l f  i s  h o w  o v e r  y o u  e a c h  a o t  a t  s i t u a t i o n s  s m o k i n g  i n d i c a t e s  p l e a s e  y o u  t h e s e  t u r n i n g  w o u l d  o f  g l a n c e  t h i n g s  e x p r e s s i n g  i f  r a t i n g  i n d i c a t e s  (1)  o u t c o c e  i n d i c a t e  i s  D E S C R I P T I O N S  a c q u a i n t a n c e ' s  g r o u p  c o n s i d e r  o n e  y o u  the  " e x p r e s s i n g  s c e n e ,  p o s i t i v e  t h a t  d e c i s i o n s  o n e .  them,  r e a d  p l e a s e  i t  t h e  S C E N E  fron-  s i t u a t i o n s .  down  4  i n c l u d e s  p r e s s  to  t o  n e x t  m a k i n g  t h i n k  if  s h o u l d  m i g h t  the  c o n c e r n s  A  P l e a s e  B  N e x t ,  n u m b e r e a ; h  i n  t h i s  o c c u r ? "  a n d  o u t c o m e  q u e s t i o n  f o r  o u t l i n e d  i n  y o u  s i t u a A g a i n ,  a l l P a r t  4 B )  ///  Appendix E  (continued) IMPORTANCE  OUTCOMES  - 4 v e r y n e g a t i v e  2.  A f t e r w a r d s , d / o r  2.  P e o p l e at  me  I ' d my  my  1".  I ' d o f  m i g h t  r e a c h  o r  h a d n ' t h a n d l e  n e g a t i v e l y  t h e  o t h e r  a c t i o n s .  on-xMua. t h i n k  tI h' ed  t s hi it nu ka t ai bo onu t  a b o u t  t h e t h i n k  I ' d  f e e l  t o w a r d  way  I  d i d  i n  t h e  s i t u a t i o n  t i m e .  m e — e . g .  p e r s o n ' ( s )  w o u l d  t h e y  m i g h t  w e l c o m e  m u c h  how  o f  much  g e t  1.  I ' d  f e e l  I ' d  c o n s i d e r  m i g h t  t h i n k  t h i n k  I'm  t h a t  t h i s  m i g h t  l i k e d  a n g r y  n e g a t i v e l y b e i n g  o r  t h e  b e  o r  s t r o n g l y  p e r s o n f o r  k n o w  h a s  I  —  f e e l  o v e r  me  a n d  me  t h e  o t h e r  p e r s o n .  o f  m e — e . g .  u n r e a s o n a b l e  o r  t h e y  m e a n ,  may  l o s e  t h i n k  r e s p e c t  I'm  f o o l i s h ,  p e r s o n ' s  p e r s o n a l i t y ,  e . g . ,  w h a t  w o u l d  l i k e ?  t h i n k  t h e  I ' d  o t h e r  p e r s o n  t h i n k  o f / u n d e r s t a n d  t h e  w o u l d  o t h e r  a c c e p t  o r  p e r s o n ' s  u n d e r s t a n d  n e e d s  i n  my  t h e  s i t u a t i o n .  to  o r d e r s t a y  "u. U, *-f I ' d  'if.  —  a b o u t  a n n o y e d . o t h e r  I ' d  13. I n  a n g r y  a p p r e c i a t e  —~  a u t h o r i t y  I  o r  .  r i g h t s / n e e d s / v a l u e s / h o w  how  a b o u t  m e ,  b e  t h e  n e x t  g o o d .  for  t h e y  my  c o n s e q u e n c e s  I ' d  a c t e d i t  »—«  I ' d  P e o p l e  12^  I  I ' d  me.  t h a t  I.  iT7  how  r e j e c t  t h i n k  w h a t  1 0 .  w i s h e d  t-h-ink  t o o n  «J  t h i n k  a v o i d g o o d  v » »  D  a  h a s s l e ,  t e r m s  w i t h  i t ' s  e a s i e r  o t h e r s — n o t  t o  g i v e  o f f e n d  i n / I  d  w a n t  t h e m . .  —' ~^ —  t h a t  t h e  o t h e r  p e r s o n ' s  b e h a v i o u r  Ii 'nd a p p f er eo lp r bi aa td el y o ra b ouu nt f ami yr s. e l f / d i s a p p o i n t e d  i n  o r  r e q u e s t  m y s e l f  w a s  - 3  -2  -1  0  +1  m i l d l y  m i l d l y  n e g a t i v e  p o s i t i v e  +2  +3  +4 v e r y p o s i t i v e  Appendix SCENE  D E S C R I P T I O N :  Y o u  a r e  a t  a p p r o a c h  a  p a r t y  t h i s  a n d  p e r s o n  s e e  a n d  a h  i n t e r e s t i n g  b e g i n  t a l k i n g  E  (continued)  p e r s o n  w i t h  o f  t h e  same  s e x .  Y o u  a r e  t r y i n g  t o  d e c i d e  w h e t h e r  B.  OUTCOMES  E X P R E S S I N G  C.  NOT  ( 1 - 1 0 0 ) 9 5 * h i g h l y 5 0 = d o n ' t 5 = h i g h l y  I.  A f t e r w a r d s , t h i n k P e o p l e o r  3.  o f  I ' d  how  m i g h t  r e j e c t  w i s h e d  I ' d  I  h a n d l e  r e a c h  h a d n ' t i t  a c t e d  n e x t  n e g a t i v e l y  t h e  way  I  d i d  i n  t h e  s i t u a t i o n  a n d / o r  t i m e .  t o w a r d  m e — e . g .  t h e y  m i g h t  g e t  a n g r y  a t  me  me.  I ' d  t h i n k  t h a t  I ' d  t h i n k  a b o u t  t h e my  o t h e r  a b o u t  hoW  p e r s o n ( s )  w o u l d  w e l c o m e  r i g h t s / n e e d s / v a l u e s / h o w  o r  s t r o n g l y  a p p r e c i a t e I  f e e l  my  a c t i o n s .  a b o u t  t h e  s i t u a t i o n . 5.  I ' d  t h i n k  c o n s e q u e n c e s 6.  I ' d  t h i n k  7.  I ' d  f e e l  8.  P e o p l e t h i n k  o f  a b o u t  m i g h t I'm  h o W m u c h  t h i n k  b e i n g  I'd  f e e l  I'd  c o n s i d e r  II.  I ' d  t h i n k  t h e  12.  I'd  t h i n k  ot/understand  13.  In  a n g r y  t o  w i t h  14.  I ' d  15.  u n f a i r I'd f e e l  t h i n k  I  b e  f o r  l i k e d  o r  t h e  t h i s  p e r s o n  h a s  me. o r  o v e r  me  and  w h a t  t h e  .  k n e w  t h e  o t h e r  p e r s o n .  o t h e r  a v o i d  b a d l y  o f o r  me, m e a n ,  e . g . ,  t h e y  t h i n k  may  I'm  l o s e  f o o l i s h ,  r e s p e c t  f o r  me,  e t c .  a n n o y e d . o t h e r  o t h e r s — t h a t  n e g a t i v e l y  u n r e a s o n a b l e  10.  o r d e r  a u t h o r i t y  m i g h t  g o o d .  9.  t e r m s  m u c h  t h a t  t h e  p e r s o n ' s  p e r s o n t h e  a. h a s s l e , n o t  a b o u t  w o u l d o t h e r i t ' s  o f f e n d  o t h e r  p e r s o n a l i t y , a c c e p t  o r  p e r s o n ' s e a s i e r  t o  e . g . ,  w h a t  u n d e r s t a n d n e e d s g i v e  i n  i n / I ' d  w o u l d  a y  t h e  t h e y  b e  l i k e ?  a c t i o n s . s i t u a t i o n .  w a n t  t o  s t a y  o n  g o o d  t h e m .  p e r s o n ' s  b e h a v i o u r  m y s e l f / d i s a p p o i n t e d  i n  o r  r e q u e s t  m y s e l f .  was  t o  t h e m .  i n a p p r o p r i a t e  o r  E X P R E S S I N G  ( 1 - 1 0 0 ) l i k e l y k n o w u n l i k e l y  ( I f w h a t  I  d i d i s  o u t c o m e  n o t  t h e w i l l  e x p r e s s  l i k e l i h o o d o c c u r ? )  m y s e l f , t h a t  t h i s  1/3  Appendix S C E N E  D E S C R I P T I O N :  Y o u  a r e  d u r i n g  w o r k i n g w o r k  o n  a  p r o j e c t  s e s s i o n s .  Y o u  w i t h  a r e  a  f e w  t r y i n g  E (continued)  p e o p l e .  t o  T h e  d e c i d e  g r o u p  w h e t h e r  o r  i s n o t  OUTCOMES  d i s c u s s i n g t o  B.  e x p r e s s  w h e t h e r  o r  n o t  s m o k i n g  s h o u l d  E X P R E S S I N G  C .  NOT  ( 1 - 1 0 0 ) 9 5 = h i g h l y 5 0 = d o n ' t 5 = h i g h l y  1.  A f t e r w a r d s , t h i n k  o f  P e o p l e o r  I ' d  how  m i g h t  r e j e c t  w i s h e d  I ' d  I  h a n d l e  r e a c h  h a d n ' t i t  a c t e d  n e x t  n e g a t i v e l y  t h e  w a y  I  d i d  i n  t h e  s i t u a t i o n  a n d / o r  t i m e .  t o w a r d  m e — e . g .  t h e y  m i g h t  g e t  a n g r y  a t  me  me.  3.  I ' d  t h i n k  t h a t  4.  I ' d  t h i n k  a b o u t  t h e Bay  o t h e r  a b o u t  how  p e r s o n ' ( s )  w o u l d  w e l c o m e  r i g h t s / n e e d s / v a l u e s / h o w  o r  s t r o n g l y  a p p r e c i a t e I  f e e l  my  a b o u t  a c t i o n s . t h e  s i t u a t i o n . 5.  I ' d  t h i n k  c o n s e q u e n c e s 6.  I ' d  t h i n k  7.  I ' d  f e e l  8.  P e o p l e t h i n k  9.  o f  a b o u t  m i g h t  I ' d  f e e l  I ' d  c o n s i d e r  1 1 .  I ' d  t h i n k  12.  I ' d  1 3 .  I n  14.  I ' d  a n g r y  m u c h  b e  I  f o r  l i k e d  n e g a t i v e l y  u n r e a s o n a b l e o r  t h e  t h e  t h i n k  t h i s  p e r s o n  h a s  o v e r  me  a n d  w h a t  t h e  f o r  me,  me. o r  k n e w  t h e  o t h e r  p e r s o n .  o t h e r  a v o i d  m e — e . g . m e a n ,  p e r s o n ' s  p e r s o n  a  t h e  t h e  h a s s l e ,  o t h e r s — n o t t h a t  o f o r  t h e y  t h i n k  may  I'm  l o s e  r e s p e c t  f o o l i s h ,  e t c .  a n n o y e d . o t h e r  o f / u n d e r s t a n d t o  w i t h  t h i n k  t h i n k  b e i n g  1 0 .  t e r m s  how  a u t h o r i t y  m i g h t  g o o d .  I'm  o r d e r  m u c h  t h a t  o t h e r i t ' s  o f f e n d  o t h e r  p e r s o n a l i t y ,  w o u l d  a c c e p t  o r  p e r s o n ' s e a s i e r  t o  e . g . ,  w h a t  u n d e r s t a n d n e e d s g i v e  i n  t h e  i n / I ' d  w o u l d  my  t h e y  b e  l i k e ?  a c t i o n s . s i t u a t i o n .  w a n t  t o  s t a y  o n  g o o d  t h e m .  p e r s o n ' s  b e h a v i o u r  o r  r e q u e s t  w a s  i n a p p r o p r i a t e  o r  u n f a i r . 1 5 .  I ' d  f e e l  b a d l y  a b o u t  m y s e l f / d i s a p p o i n t e d  i n  m y s e l f .  '  b e  a l l o w e d  y o u r s e l f  E X P R E S S I N G  ( 1 - 1 0 0 ) l i k e l y k n o w u n l i k e l y  ( I f  I  d i d  HOT  w h a t  i s  t h e  t h i s  o u t c o m e  e x p r e s s  m y s e l f  l i k e l i h o o d  t h a t  w i l l  o c c u r ?  Appendix 'SCENE  D E S C R I P T I O N :  A n  a c q u a i n t a n c e  s a y s  h e  b e c a u s e o r  n o t  a p p r o a c h e s  d o e s n ' t h e ' d t o  f e e l  l i k e  l i k e  t o  y o u  a n d  w r i t i n g  s u b m i t  i t  e x p l a i n s o n e .  f o r  He  h i s  E (continued) t h a t  a s k s  h e ' s i f  c o u r s e .  i n  h e  Y o u  a  c a n  f e e l  j a m — h e b o r r o w  t h i s  i s  h a s  onw  t o  t h a t  h a n d y o u  u n r e a s o n a b l e  i n  a n  w r o t e a n d  e s s a y f o r  a r e  a  f o r  a  c o u r s e  c o u r s e  t r y i n g  t o  l a s t d e c i d e  B.  E X P R E S S I N G  C.  9 5 = h i g h l y 5 0 = d o n ' t 5 = h i g h l y  t h i n k 2.  4.  o f  I ' d  how  P e o p l e  m i g h t  r e j e c t  me.  w i s h e d  I ' d  I  h a n d l e  r e a c h  h a d n ' t i t  I ' d  t h i n k  t h a t  t h i n k  a b o u t  t h e my  o t h e r  a b o u t  how  a c t e d  n e x t  n e g a t i v e l y  I ' d  w h e t h e r  NOT  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  A f t e r w a r d s ,  h e  r e f u s e .  OUTCOMES  1.  b u t y e a r  t h e  way  I  d i d  i n  t h e  s i t u a t i o n  E X P R E S S I N G  ( 1 - 1 0 0 ) l i k e l y  ( I f  k n o w u n l i k e l y  I  d i d  NOT  w h a t  i s  t h e  t h i s  o u t c o m e  e x p r e s s  m y s e l f ,  l i k e l i h o o d w i l l  t h a t  o c c u r ? )  a n d / o r  t i m e .  t o w a r d  p e r s o n ( s )  m e — e . g . ,  w o u l d  t h e y  w e l c o m e  r i g h t s / n e e d s / v a l u e s / h o w  o r  s t r o n g l y  m i g h t  g e t  a p p r e c i a t e I  f e e l  a n g r y  my  a t  me  o r  a c t i o n s .  a b o u t  t h e  s i t u a t i o n . I ' d  t h i n k  c o n s e q u e n c e s 6.  I ' d  t h i n k  7.  I ' d  f e e l  8.  P e o p l e t h i n k  o f  much  t h a t  a b o u t  h o w  m u c h  m i g h t  t h i n k  b e i n g  u n r e a s o n a b l e  a n g r y  o r  I ' d  f e e l  I ' d  c o n s i d e r  11.  I ' d  t h i n k  t h e  1 2 .  I ' d  t h i n k  o f / u n d e r s t a n d  1 3 .  I n  o r d e r  I ' d  t o  w i t h  t h i n k  f o r  l i k e d  n e g a t i v e l y  I'm  9.  1 4 .  I  b e  t h i s  p e r s o n  h a s  o r  k n e w  t h e  o t h e r  t h e  I ' d  f e e l  me  a n d  w h a t  t h e  p e r s o n .  m e ,  m e a n ,  e . g . ,  t h e y  t h i n k  I'm  may  o t h e r  t h e  p e r s o n ' s  p e r s o n  a  t h e  h a s s l e ,  o t h e r s — n o t  b a d l y  l o s e  f o o l i s h ,  r e s p e c t  f o r  m e ,  e t c .  annoyt-d. o t h e r  a v o i d  t h a t  o f  o r  o t h e r i t ' s  o f f e n d  o t h e r  p e r s o n a l i t y ,  w o u l d  a c c e p t  o r  p e r s o n ' s e a s i e r  t o  e . g » ,  a b o u t  w h a t  u n d e r s t a n d n e e d s g i v e  i n  w o u l d  my  t h e  i n / I ' d  t h e y  b e  l i k e ?  a c t i o n s . s i t u a t i o n .  w a n t  t o  s t a y  o n  g o o d  t h e m .  p e r s o n ' s  b e h a v i o u r  o r  r e q u e s t  u n f a i r . 1 5 .  o v e r  me.  g o o d .  1 0 .  t e r m s  a u t h o r i t y  m i g h t  m y s e l f / d i s a p p o i n t e d  i n  m y s e l f .  w a s  i n a p p r o p r i a t e  o r  —  —  —  —  —  . — —  Appendix S C E N E  Y e a  D E S C R I P T I O N :  h a v e  some  b e e n  w c r k  h i r e d  w h i c h  t o  i s  do  some  w o r k  f o r  n o t  p a r t  o f  c l e a r l y  a  E  (continued)  p r o f e s s o r .  y o u r  j o b .  He  Y o u  a p p r o a c h e s  a r e  t r y i n g  t o  B.  OUTCOMES  y o u  a n d  d e c i d e  a s k s  y o u  w h e t h e r  E X P R E S S I N G  o r  t o  do  n o t  h i m t o  C.  a  NOT  5 0 = d o n ' t 5 = h i g h l y 1.  A f t e r w a r d s , t h i n k  2.  o f  P e o p l e  Ut  I ' d  how  m i g h t  L e j ieec ci t.  w i s h e d  I ' d  r e a c h  me me. t h a t  I ' d  t h i n k  a b o u t  my  I ' d  t h i n k  a b o u t  h o w  c o n s e a u e n c e s t h i n k  I ' d  f e e l  8.  P e o p l e t h i n k  o f  I ' m  I ' d  f e e l  I ' d  c o n s i d e r  11  I ' d  t h i n k  1 2 .  I ' d  13.  I n  1 5 .  u n f a i r . I ' d f e e l  t o w a r d  I  d i d  i n  t h e  m e ~ e . g .  t h e y  m i g h t  - • p e r s o n ( s )  m u c h  t h a t  w o u l d  a u t h o r i t y  m i g h t m u c h  b e  I  f o r  l i k e d  n e g a t i v e l y  u n r e a s o n a b l e o r  t h e  t h e  s i t u a t i o n  a n d / o r  w e l c o m e  t h i s  o r  a n g r y  I  h a s  a t  me  — —  a p p r e c i a t e  s t r o n g l y  p e r s o n  g e t  f e e l  o v e r  my  a b o u t  rae  a n d  a c t i o n s . t h e  w h a t  t h e  f o r  me,  me. o r  k n e w  t h e  o t h e r  p e r s o n .  o t h e r  a v o i d  b a d l y  m e ~ e . g . m e a n ,  p e r s o n ' s  p e r s o n  a  t h e  t h e  h a s s l e ,  o t h e r s — n o t *• t h a t  o f o r  t h e y  t h i n k  may  I ' m  l o s e  r e s p e c t  f o o l i s h ,  e t c .  a n n o y e d o t . i e r  o f / u n d e r s t a n d t o  w i Lt Lhl WX  t h i n k  w a y  r i g h t s / n e e d s / v a l u e s / h o w  t h i n k  a n g r y  t h i n k  I ' d  o t h e r  h e w  b e i n g  9.  14.  t h e  t i m e .  g o o d  10.  tL .eC r1 .m U 1s0  t h e  a b o u t  m i g h t  o r d e r  a c t e d  n e x t  .  t h i n k  I ' d  h a d n ' t i t  n e g a t i v e l y  I ' d  6.  I  h a n d l e  a b o u t  o t h e r i t ' s  o f f e n d  o t h e r  p e r s o n a l i t y ,  w o u l d  a c c e p t  o r  p e r s o n ' s e a s i e r  t o  e . g . ,  n e e d s g i v e  t h e m .  p e r s o n ' s  i n  i n  o r  r e q u e s t  m y s e l f .  w o u l d  my  t h e  i n / I ' d —  b e h a v i o u r  m y s e l f / d i s a p p o i n t e d  w h a t  u n d e r s t a n d  t h e y  b e  l i k e ?  a c t i o n s . s i t u a t i o n .  w a n t •  w a s  —  t o —  —  s t a y —  ^  —  o n —  —  g o o d —  i n a p p r o p r i a t e  —  o r  E X P R E S S I N G  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  ( 1 - 1 0 0 ) 9 5 = h i g h l y  f a v o u r —  r e f u s e .  l i k e l y k n o w u n l i k e l y  ( I f w h a t  I  d i d i s  o u t c o m e  n o t  t h e w i l l  e x p r e s s  l i k e l i h o o d o c c u r ? )  m y s e l f , t h a t  t h i s  Appendix F SEU Q u e s t i o n a i r r e  Freeform  NAME,'.  T h e r e  a r e  s e c t i o n  4  s e c t i o n s  b e f o r e  y o u  t o  go  t h i s  o n  q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  t o  t h e  P l e a s e  c o m p l e t e  W r i t e  e a c h  n o w ,  n e x t .  t h i s  P l e a s e  r e a d  A f t e r  y o u  t h e  h a v e  4  r e a d  f a c t o r s  y o u  e x p r e s s  y o u r s e l f .  - W h a t - I f  y o u  - W h a t We  p l e a s e  l i s t  f o r  P a r t  o f  N e x t , for  c o n s i d e r  n e g a t i v e  i t  A  the  i s  b e  4  t h e  w h a t  i n  o f  t h e  s c e n e ,  d e c i s i o n  e a c h  n e x t t h i n k  w h e t h e r  o r  y o u r s e l f  t o  4  o f  o u t c o m e  d i c a t e s  b y t h e  the  o u t c o m e  y o u  c o n s i d e r o n e  *  *  *  e a c h  i s  *  +1  y o u  t o  *  I n  c o n s i d e r  C o l u m n  P l e a s e  o n e  y o u  +4.  *  y o u  i s  w o u l d  n o t  r a t i n g  d o  i n d i c a t e s  l i s t e d  i s  n e g a t i v e  o u t c o m e  i s  v a l u e  m i l d l y  e x t r e m e l y  i n  o f  t h e  n o t  ( J . N e x t ,  t o  o f  n e g a t i v e ) .  o u t c o m e  t o  b e  r a t i n g ,  b e t w e e n  +4  a n d  t h i n k  o c c u r  b e ?  i f  w o u l d  A ,  " I f  d e c i d i n g  t i t l e d  i t f o r -1  A  n e i t h e r - 4  f o r  a l l  p a r t  C,  a n d  " I M P O R T A N C E . "  p l e a s e  do  A G a i n ,  t h e s e  d o  t h i s  " i m p o r t a n c e "  s c e n e s .  how  y o u  p r o b a b l e  d i d  i t  e x p r e s s  " E X P R E S S I N G " i n d i c a t e  c a n  t h i n k  o f .  t h i s  n o w  b e f o r e  Do  g o i n g  y o u ' d t o  l i k e  p o s i t i v e  o n  t o a  p l e a s e  - 4 .  (A  r a t i n g  r a t i n g  o f  p o s i t i v e e a c h  n e g a t i v e h a p p e n ;  I f b y  t h e  e x t r e m e l y  y o u ,  t o  h a p p e n .  i n d i c a t e s  i s  o r  y o u  t h e  i s  t h a t  y o u r s e l f  w r i t e  d o w n  l i k e l i h o o d  a  e a c h  i n  o u t c o m e  e a c h  n u m b e r  o f  o f  - 4  i n d i c a t e s  o r  n e g a t i v e . y o u  I f  my  m y s e l f  o u t c o m e  i n  w i l l  t h e  y o u  l i s t e d  s i t u a t i o n .  b e t w e e n  o u t c o m e  o c c u r ? "  l i k e l y y o u  d o n ' t  c o u l d  go  e i t h e r  w a y ,  a n d  a  t h i n k  i t  i s  t h e s e -  r a t i n g s e a c h  t o o f  g u i d e t h e  -1  F i n a l l y  i n -  t h a t C h o o s e  i n  s  C o l u m n  1  I n  a n d  w o u l d  C o l u m n  100  o c c u r r i n g  C,  w h i c h  i f  b e t w e e n  1  o u t c o m e  o c c u r r i n g  in  t h i s  a n d  y o u  100  o c c u r ? "  A g a i n ,  a n d  a l l  f o r  l i n e d  i n  4  p a r t  do  *  w h i c h i f  s h o u l d  s i t u a t i o n ,  *  y o u  d i d  *  w o u l d  y o u a s k  w h a t t h e s e  s c e n e s .  *  d i d  y o u r s e l f i s  t h e  r a t i n g s ( P l e a s e  w i l l  o c c u r ,  i n d i c a t e s  o u t c o m e a  a n d , *  *  w i l l  f o r  *  a l l  w r i t e  i s ,  I  e a c h t h e  d i d t h a t  o f  same  ************  l i s t e d . YOU!  t h a t  y o u  U s i n g  b e t w e e n  1  a n d  s c e n e s .  d o w n  l i k e l i h o o d  y o u r s e l f .  l i k e l i h o o d  n o t — i t  *  t h e  " I f  o r  4  y o u  r a t i n g  o c c u r .  n u m b e r  e x p r e s s  u s e  a  l e s s  E X P R E S S I N G "  f o r  i n d i c a t e s  o r  C ) .  THANK  m o r e  5  c h o o s e  *  o r  i s  l i k e l i h o o d  o c c u r  i n d i c a t e NOT  95  t h e  w i l l  t h e  *  "NOT  o f  i s  y o u r s e l f  i t  l i s t e d ,  *  w h a t  a s k i n g  i f  o f  p l e a s e  t i t l e d  b e  o u t c o m e  k n o w  t h a t  o u t c o m e s  D  t h e  r a t i n g  y o u ,  s h o u l d  r a t i n g  t h a t  u n l i k e l y  * D.  A  t h a t  h i g h l y  y o u  s i t u a t i o n ,  i n d i c a t e s  f o r  h i g h l y  t h i s  o f  50  i s  q u e s t i o n  i t  q u e s t i o n  h o w  i n d i c a t e s  0  o u t c o m e  i s  p o s i t i v e ) .  o f  e x p r e s s  T h e  f e e l  o u t c o m e  r a t i n g  y o u r s e l f .  t h i n k  100  a  a s s i g n i n g  i n d i c a t e  I  t h a t  " O U T C O M E S "  y o u  p o s i t i v e  h o w  +1  n e g a t i v e ;  t h e  i s  l i k e  o f  t o  t i t l e d  * * * * * * * * * * * *  *  i n d i c a t e  +4  a  *  l i s t e d  w h i l e  i t  *  s o m e t h i n g  p l e a s e (A  *  o n  f o r  e x p r e s s  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  *  o u t c o m e  o u t c o m e  a s s i g n i n g  i s  *  g o i n g  B,  h a p p e n ?  w o u l d  y o u r s e l f .  c o l u m n  p a g e s .  s i t u a t i o n ?  y o u  o r  e x p r e s s i n g  w o u l d  s i t u a t i o n s .  p o s i t i v e ,  p o s i t i v e ,  n e g a t i v e  o n l y  i f  o u t c o m e  v a l u e  m i l d l y  e a c h  o f  t i t l e d  e f f e c t s  o u t c o m e s  p o s i t i v e  o u t c o m e a  f o r  t o p  B.  y o u .  the  m a k i n g  e v e r y t h i n g  t h e  * B.  t h e  e x p r e s s  many  e a c h  i n  t h e  e x a m p l e :  g o a l s  t o  as  c o n s i d e r  i n  a t  d e s c r i p t i o n ,  y o u r s e l f ,  y o u r  n o t  e a c h  e x p e c t  i n t e r e s t e d o r  d e s c r i p t i o n s  F o r  e x p r e s s e d  w h e t h e r  to  y o u  w o u l d  a r e  t h i s  w o u l d  w o u l d  s c e n e  i n  b e f o r e  r a t i n g s A.  n u m b e r  t h e  NOT my  a  o f  H e r e ,  e a c h t h e  e x p r e s s o u t c o m e  o u t c o m e s  r a t i n g  n u m b e r  s c h e m e  m y s e l f w i l l l i s t e d , a s  o u t -  Ill  Appendix S c e n e  D e s c r i p t i o n :  Y o u t h i s  A. ( f o r  m i g h t  a t  a  p e r s o n  p a r t y a n d  i f  y o u  y o u r s e l f , h a p p e n ? )  a n d  t o  e x w h a t  - 4 v e r y n e g a t i v e  s e e  b e g i n  B.  OUTCOMES  e x a m p l e ,  p r e s s e d  a r e  - 3  a n  i n t e r e s t i n g  t a l k i n g  w i t h  p e r s o n  o f  t h e  F  s a m e  -1 m i l d l y n e g a t i v e  s e x .  C. 0  Y o u  a r e  t r y i n g  t o  d e c i d e  w h e t h e r  t o  a p p r o a c h  t h e m .  IMPORTANCE - 2  (continued)  +1  +2  +3  v e r y  p o s i t i v e  p o s i t i v e  95  a b o v e  50 5  •  NOT  b e l o w  =  h i g h l y  =  d o n ' t  =  h i g h l y  E X P R E S S I N G ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  +4  m i l d l y  D.  E X P R E S S I N G  l i k e l y k n o w u n l i k e l y  ( I f  I  w h a t  d i d i s  NOT t h e  e x p r e s s  m y s e l f ,  l i k e l i h o o d w i l l  o c c u r ?  t h a t  lit  Appendix S c e n e  D e s c r i p t i o n :  Y o u  a r e  a l l o w e d  A. (for  m i g h t  d u r i n g  o n  a  w o r k  p r o j e c t  i f  y o u  ex-•  w h a t  - 4 v e r y n e g a t i v e  - 3  - 2  a  Y o u  B.  y o u r s e l f , happen?.)  w i t h  s e s s i o n s .  OUTCOMES  e x a m p l e ,  p r e s s e d  w o r k i n g  -1  f e w a r e  p e o p l e . t r y i n g  t o  T h e  F  g r o u p  d e c i d e  (continued) i s  d i s c u s s i n g  w h e t h e r  C.  IMPORTANCE 0  +1  m i l d l y  m i l d l y  n e g a t i v e  p o s i t i v e  o r  +2  +3  n o t  w h e t h e r  t o  e x p r e s s  o r  n o t  s m o k i n g  s h o u l d  D.  E X P R E S S I N G  NOT  95  a b o v e  5 0  p o s i t i v e  5  **  b e l o w  -  h i g h l y  =  d o n ' t  =  h i g h l y  E X P R E S S I N G  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  +4 v e r y  b e  y o u r s e l f .  l i k e l y k n o w u n l i k e l y  ( I f  I  w h a t t h a t  d i d i s  NOT t h e  e x p r e s s  m y s e l f  l i k e l i h o o d w i l l  o c c u r ?  Appendix S c e n e  D e s c r i p t i o n :  A n  a c q u a i n t a n c e  s a y s  A. (for  m i g h t  d o e s n ' t  b e c a u s e  h e ' d  w h e t h e r  o r  f e e l  l i k e  n o t  t o  i f  y o u  y o u r s e l f , h a p p e n ? )  t o  l i k e  y o u  e x w h a t  -4 v e r y n e g a t i v e  - 3  a n d  w r i t i n g  s u b m i t  i t  e x p l a i n s o n e .  f o r  h i s  He  t h a t a s k s  c o u r s e .  h e ' s i f Y o u  h e  (continued)  i n  a  c a n  f e e l  j a m — h e b o r r o w  t h i s  i s  h a s  o n e  t o  h a n d  t h a t  y o u  u n r e a s o n a b l e  i n  a n  w r o t e a n d  e s s a y f o r  a r e  a  f o r  a  c o u r s e  c o u r s e  t r y i n g  l a s t  t o  h e  o u t y e a r  d e c i d e  r e f u s e  B.  OUTCOMES  e x a m p l e ,  p r e s s e d  h e  a p p r o a c h e s  F  C.  I M P O R T A N C E  -1 m i l d l y n e g a t i v e  0  +1 m i l d l y p o s i t i v e  +2  +3  p o s i t i v e  HOT  95  a b o v e  50 5  b e l o w  -  h i g h l y  =  d o n ' t  =  h i g h l y  E X P R E S S I N G  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  +4 v e r y  D.  E X P R E S S I N G  l i k e l y k n o w u n l i k e l y  ( I f  I  s e l f , h o o d  d i d  NOT  w h a t t h a t  i s  e x p r e s s  m y -  t h e  l i v e l i -  w i l l  o c c u r ?  Appendix S c e n e  Y o u  D e s c r i p t i o n :  h a v e  w h i c h  A. (for  m i g h t  h i r e d  c l e a r l y  n o t  t o  do  p a r t  i f  y o u  y o u r s e l f , h a p p e n ? )  some o f  e x -  w h a t  - 4 v e r y n e g a t i v e  - 3  •2  w o r k  y o u r  B.  OUTCOMES  e x a m p l e ,  p r e s s e d  i s  b e e n  -1 m i l d l y n e g a t i v e  f o r  a  j o b .  p r o f e s s o r . Y o u  a r e  F He  t r y i n g  (continued) a p p r o a c h e s t o  C.  IMPORTANCE 0  +1 m i l d l y p o s i t i v e  d e c i d e  +2  +3  y o u  a n d  w h e t h e r  a s k s  o r  n o t  y o u t o  t o  do  h i m  a  f a v o u r - s o m e  D.  E X P R E S S I N G  NOT  v e r y  95  p o s i t i v e  50 5  a b o v e  b e l o w  =  h i g h l y  =  d o n ' t  =  h i g h l y  E X P R E S S I N G ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  ( 1 - 1 0 0 )  +4  w o r k  r e f u s e .  l i k e l y k n o w u n l i k e l y  ( I f  I  wh-»t  d i d i s  NOT t h e  e x p r e s s  m y s e l f ,  l i k e l i h o o d  w i l l  o c c u r ?  t h a t  Appendix  G  Demographic Information Form Number o f y e a r s  of education  Sex Age Occupation/Full-time  student?  Appendix  Tension  not tense  somewhat tense  Rating  H  Scale  quite tense  very tense  123 Appendix Role  1.  In t h i s  situation,  a n o t h e r m a n / w o m a n who cide whether  Playing Situations  let's  say you're  a t a p a r t y and you  looks interesting.  You  to begin a c o n v e r s a t i o n with  the other person what you'd  I  play yourselfv  and you  n o r m a l l y do  starting  now.  are trying  him/her. Why  to  de-  I ' l l be  don't you  ( b r e a k s eye  see  do  contact with  subject) Subject: Experimenter: Subject: ' Experimenter: Subject:  0h~,  FTH  (sounds  bored)  responds with a very b r i e f , negative response •  2. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , w e ' r e i n t e r e s t e d smoking. I ' l l start.  1  3.  you  feel  about  E: How d o y o u f e e l a b o u t s m o k i n g i n p u b l i c p l a c e s ? S: E :". , We I T , why do y o u . s a y / T H A T ? S: E: W h a t a b o u t n o n - s m o k e r s ? Don't they have r i g h t s too? OR What a b o u t s m o k e r s ? Don't they have r i g h t s too? OR T h i s i s an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e c o n c e r n i n g p e o p l e ' s r i g h t s . How c a n y o u NOT f e e l s t r o n g l y a b o u t i t ? S:  This situation  i n v o l v e s someone who's i n one  but t h e y ' r e not a c l o s e f r i e n d . ask to borrow unreasonable. This  i n how  somewhat  time  one  of your  essays.  They  approach  You  I ' l l be t h e o t h e r p e r s o n  I ' l l b e g i n.  of your  you  think this and you  one  day  classes, and  request is  be y o u r s e l f .  124  Appendix  E:  S: E: S: E: S:  I  (continued)  H i , g e e , I'm R E A L L Y s t u c k . I h a v e t o hand i n an essay f o r a c o u r s e , but I j u s t don't f e e l l i k e w r i t i n g one. C o u l d I b o r r o w one o f y o u r o l d e s s a y s t o hand i n f o r my c o u r s e — I ' d R E A L L Y a p p r e c i a t e i t . _____ Aw, l o o k , w h a t ' s t h e b i g d e a l ? Oh, P L E A S E , I r e a l l y n e e d i t . ( I f S c o m p l i e s , E responds , "thanks". )  125 Appendix  J  Peer Ratings Form Dear  ,  has v o l u n t e e r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n an e x p e r i m e n t s t u d y i n g how p e o p l e m a k e d e c i s i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . A s p a r t o f o u r s t u d y , he/she has been asked t o nominate a f r e i n d whom we may c o n t a c t . T h e y h a v e g i v e n u s y o u r name a n d p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n t a c t y o u . We w o u l d g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e i f y o u would take f i v e minutes to complete t h i s form. We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r i m p r e s s i o n o f how would a c t in the t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d below. Please read each o f t h e t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s . a n d , b a s e d on y o u r k n o w l e d g e o f y o u r f r i e n d , s p e c u l a t e how t h e y w o u l d r e a c t i f t h e y a c t u a l l y w e r e i n t h e s e situations. F o r E A C H o f t h e t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s , c h e c k ONE o f the f i v e l i s t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s . Y o u r r e s p o n s e s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l - - y o u r f r i e n d w i l l n o t be i n f o r m e d o f your responses. ( I f you have any q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t me a t 2 2 4 - 5 4 3 1 ) . After completing i t , please put t h i s form i n t h e e n c l o s e d e n v e l o p e and drop i t i n a m a i l box. T h a n k y o u f o r h e l p i n g us o u t ! Robin Cappe Psychology Dept., Scoring  University  o f B.C.  Key Situation  1  In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , p r e t e n d y o u r f r i e n d i s a t a p a r t y a n d s e e s an i n t e r e s t i n g p e r s o n o f t h e same sex. Your f r i e n d i s t r y i n g t o d e c i d e whether t o approach t h i s person and begin t a l k i n g w i t h them. Would y o u r f r i e n d . . . ( p i ease check one o f the f o l l o w i n g ) 1 2 3 4 5  go o v e r and t r y t o b e g i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n : ; w i t h them p r o b a b l y a p p r o a c h them maybe a p p r o a c h them, maybe n o t - - a b o u t a 50% c h a n c e o f a p p r o a c h i n g p r o b a b l y n o t a p p r o a c h them not approach the other person  126 Appendix Scoring  J  (continued)  Key Situation  2  Y o u r f r i e n d i s w o r k i n g on a p r o j e c t w i t h a f e w people. The group i s d i s c u s s i n g whether or n o t s m o k i n g s h o u l d be a l l o w e d d u r i n g w o r k s e s s i o n s . Would your f r i e n d . . . 1 2 3 4 5  c a l m l y and a p p r o p r i a t e l y e x p r e s s h i s o p i n i o n probably express h i s opinion _:.maybe e x p r e s s h i s o p i n i o n , m a y b e n o t . 5 0 % c h a n c e vaguely or apologetically express h i s opinion not express his opinion  Situation  3  An a c q u a i n t a n c e a p p r o a c h e s y o u r f r i e n d a n d e x p l a i n s t h a t h e ' s i n a j a m - - h e h a s t o hand i n an e s s a y f o r a c o u r s e b u t he s a y s h e d o e s n ' t f e e l l i k e w r i t i n g o n e . He a s k s y o u r f r i e n d i f he c a n borrow one t h a t y o u r f r i e n d wrote f o r a c o u r s e l a s t y e a r , b e c a u s e he w o u l d l i k e t o s u b m i t i t for his course. A s s u m i n g t h a t t h i s i s an unr e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t , would your f r i e n d . . . ( p l e a s e check one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g ) 1 2 3 4 5  n o t g i v e him t h e e s s a y ; a s s e r t i v e l y and c a l m l y t u r n h i m down p r o b a b l y n o t g i v e him t h e e s s a y maybe g i v e him t h e e s s a y , maybe n o t . 50% c h a n c e m a k e up a n e x c u s e t o n o t g i v e t h e e s s a y o r be v a g u e o r p e r h a p s a p o l o g i z e a l o t g i v e h i m t h e e s s a y , e v e n t h o u g h he w o u l d n ' t want t o  127  Appendix Self  Scoring  Ratings of  K Behaviour  Key Party Situation  Would  you...  1  go o v e r a n d t r y t o b e g i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h  2  probably approach  3  maybe a p p r o a c h  4  probably not approach  5  not approach  them  them, maybe n o t :  about  the other  the other  Smoking S i t u a t i o n  Would  50 %  chance  person  person  you...  1  c a l m l y and a p p r o p r i a t e l y e x p r e s s  2  probably express  3  maybe e x p r e s s  4  vaguely  5  not express  opinion  opinion  o p i n i o n , maybe n o t :  or apologetically  express  50%  chance  his opinion  opinion  Essay S i t u a t i o n  Would  you...  1  n o t g i v e him t h e e s s a y ;  2  p r o b a b l y n o t g i v e him t h e e s s a y  3  maybe g i v e him t h e e s s a y , maybe n o t :  4  make up an e x c u s e vague or perhaps  5  them  c a l m l y t u r n h i m down  50%  chance  t o n o t g i v e t h e e s s a y o r be apologize a l o t  g i v e him t h e e s s a y , even  though  he w o u l d n ' t  want i t  Appendix L Behavioural Eye  Scales  Name  Situation  Number  Contact  l o o k s away 51 % o r m o r e Hand  Rating  Subject's  l o o k s away 39-51%  l o o k s away 26-38%  l o o k s away 13-25%  looks <12%  f r e q u e n t l y moving or tense. TIGHT fold.  sometimes moving or clasped (interlocking f i n g e r s ) at l e a s t 75% time  quite relaxed but a few b r i e f movements, or loosely clasping f i n g e r s  f i n g e r s extended, even i f hands are f o l d e d  some d i s c o m f o r t b u t some c o m f o r t . 1 cue often or constantly  quite comfortable several brief . s i g n s o f d i scornf o r t , more than 3 minor cues  comfortable given the situation. 2 or 3 minor cues  somewhat e f f e c t i v e / ineffective.  quite effective a flaw i n content o r b r i e f discortH fort. Ok t o h a v e minor verbal & non-verbal flaw  generally smooth & effective;in control. minor, f l a w OK  away  Relaxation  very tense or c o n s t a n t movement. TIGHT c l a s p  Anxi ety  2 o r more cues o f noticeable discomf i d g e t i n g o r t e n s i o n f o r t ' a t '.times .. p e r a t l e a s t most o f time iod i c a l ly t e n s e . :  Effectiveness  quite ineffective. g e n e r a l l y not smooth or i n good c o n t r o l  somewhat i n e f f e c t i v e , a t times n o t smooth questionable control  Appendix  Assertion  4  Yes No Already Maybe  (continued)  Content  does not express s e l f o r s t a n d up for rights  Situation  L  did i t  attempt at a s s e r t i o n but u n s u c c e s s f u l . noticeable aggression or unassertion. may m a k e e x c u s e s .  somewhat a s s e r t i v e , generally di rect b u t some i r r i t a t i o n or u n a s s e r t i o n  generally assertive but content is flawed.  assertive, expresses self directly & appropri ateiy  130 Appendix Rating  General 1..'  Things  to  Count three Use  2.  Manual  of  M Behaviours  Consider:  seconds a f t e r the  subject's  third  statement.  stopwatch.  Remember to d i s c o u n t  anything  said after subject's  third  statement. 3.  If s i t u a t i o n goes beyond past  Eye  that  two  minutes, discount  everything  point.  Contact  Begin  timing  timing  immediately  three  seconds a f t e r subject's  minutes t o t a l . looks Hand  Rate eye  contact  final  twice  l a s t word.  statement,  and  time  or  amount  End two subject  AWAY. Relaxation  H e r e we the  after role player's  are  r a t i n g e i t h e r t e n s i o n or movement or both.  hands are moving  of e x p r e s s i o n ,  don't  i n a way count  that could  be  simply  If  instruments  this.  Anxiety This  i s a g l o b a l m e a s u r e o f how  appears  to be.  Again,  anxious/comfortable  tension  i s as  important  the  subject  as f i d g e t i n g .  E f f e c t i veness This an  i s an  i n d i c a t i o n of the  interpersonal situation.  person?  Are  dock p o i n t s  they  s m o o t h ; and  for agression  subject's How  global  socially  in control?  or u n a s s e r t i o n .  effectiveness in  effective is this Don't f o r g e t How  would you  to feel  Appendix M (continued) on  the r e c e i v i n g end?  This s c a l e i n c l u d e s both  131  nonverbals  and  verbals. Assertion Recall  Content  that the d e f i n i t i o n  or b e l i e f s ,  of assertion i s expressing  o r s t a n d i n g up f o r o n e ' s r i g h t s .  one r e s p e c t s both  directly use.  and a p p r o p r i a t e l y ?  Discount  In b e i n g a s s e r t i v e ,  h i m s e l f and t h e o t h e r p e r s o n .  f o r u n a s s e r t i o n and a g g r e s s i o n .  Do t h e y e x p r e s s  Consider  a l l nonverbals.  opinions  Dock  points  themselves  o n l y the words  they  132 References  A l b e r t i , R . E . , & E m m o n s , M.L. Y o u r p e r f e c t r i g h t - - a g u i d e t o assertive behaviour. San L u i s O b i s p o , C a l i f : Impact, 1974. A l d e n , L . & C a p p e , R. N o n a s s e r t i v e n e s s : S k i l l selective self-evaluation? (In publication).  deficit or  A l d e n , L. & S a f r a n , J.D. I r r a t i o n a l b e l i e f s and n o n a s s e r t i v e behaviour. C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y a n d R e s e a r c h , 1 9 7 8 , £ , 357 - 3 6 4 . A r g y r i s , C. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m p e t e n c e - I . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e , 1 9 6 5 , X , 58 - 8 3 . B a r l o w , D.H., A b e l , G.G., B l a n c h a r d , E . B . , B r i s t o w , A . R . & Young, L.D. A h e t e r o s o c i a l s k i l l s b e h a v i o u r c h e c k l i s t f o r m a l e s . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8, 2 2 9 - 2 3 9 . B e a c h , B.H. E x p e r t j u d g e m e n t a b o u t u n c e r t a i n t y : B a y e s i a n d e c i s i o n making i n r e a l i s t i c s e t t i n g s . Organ i z a t i o n a l Behaviour a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1 9 7 5 , 1^4, 10 - 5 9 . B e a c h . L.R. P r o b a b i l i t y m a g n i t u d e s a n d c o n s e r v a t i v e r e v i s i o n o f subjective probabilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 9 6 8 , 77 , 57 - 6 3 . B e a c h , L.R. A n o t e on t h e i n t r a s u b j e c t s i m i l a r i t y o f s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s o b t a i n e d by e s t i m a t e s a n d by b e t s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1 9 7 4 , J ^ , 2 5 0 - 252.' B e a c h , L.R., & P e t e r s o n , C R . unions of events. Psychonomic  Subjective probabilities f o r S c i e n c e , 1 9 6 6 , 5, 3 0 7 - 3 0 8 .  B e a c h , L.R., & P h i l l i p s , L.D. S u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n f e r r e d from e s t i m a t e s and b e t s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology, 1967, 75, 354 - 359. B e a c h , L . R . , T o w n e s , B . D . , C a m p b e l l , F . L . , & K e a t i n g , G.W. Developing and t e s t i n g a d e c i s i o n a i d f o r b i r t h p l a n n i n g decisions. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1 9 7 6 , 1 5 , 99 - 1 1 6 . Beach, L.R., & Wise, J . A . S u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y r e v i s i o n a n d subsequent d e c i s i o n s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology,'. 1969, 8 1 , 561 - 5 6 5 . B e l l a c k , A . , H e r s e n , M. , & L a m p a r s k i , D. R o l e p l a y t e s t s f o r assessing social skills: Are they v a l i d ? Are they u s e f u l ? J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1979, 47, 335 - 342.  133 B e l l a c k , A . S . , H e r s e n , M., & T u r n e r , S.M. Generalization e f f e c t s of social s k i l l s t r a i n i n g in chronic s c h i z o p h r e n i c s : An e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l y s i s . B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h and T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 6 , 1 4 , 391 - 3 9 8 . B e l l a c k , A . S . , H e r s e n , M., & T u r n e r , S.M. assessing social skills: Are they v a l i d ? 1 9 7 8 , 9., 4 4 8 - 4 6 1 .  Role play tests f o r Behaviour Therapy,  B e l l a c k , A . S . , H e r s e n , M., & T u r n e r , S.M. R e l a t i o n s h i p of r o l e p l a y i n g and k n o w l e d g e o f a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r t o a s s e r t i o n i n the n a t u r a l environment. Journal of Consulting & C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1979, 47, 670 - 678. C h r i s t e n s e n , A . , A r k o w i t z , H., & A n d e r s o n , J . P r a c t i c e d a t i n g as t r e a t m e n t f o r c o l l e g e d a t i n g i n h i b i t i o n s . Behaviour Research a n d T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 5 , 13 321 - 3 3 1 . C l a r k , J . V . , & A r k o w i t z , H. S o c i a l a n x i e t y and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n of i n t e r p e r s o n a l performance. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1975, 3 6 , 211 - 2 2 1 . C u r r a n , J.P. S k i l l s t r a i n i n g a s an a p p r o a c h of heterosexual - s o c i a l a n x i e t y : A review. B u i l e t i n , 1 9 7 7 , 84, 140 - 157.  to the treatment Psychological  C u r r a n , J . P . , & G i l b e r t , F.S. A t e s t of the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a s y s t e m a t i c d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n p r o g r a m and an i n t e r personal s k i l l s t r a i n i n g program with date anxious s u b j e c t s . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 5 , 6., 5 1 0 - 5 2 1 . D i x o n , J . J . , de M o n c h a u x , C , & S a n d l e r , J . P a t t e r n s o f a n x i e t y : An a n a l y s i s o f s o c i a l a n x i e t i e s . B r i t i s h Journal of Medical P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 5 7 , 3 0 , 107 - 1 1 2 . E d e l s t e i n , B.A., & E i s l e r , R.M. E f f e c t s o f m o d e l i n g and m o d e l i n g w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d f e e d b a c k on t h e b e h a v i o u r a l c o m p o n e n t s of social s k i l l s . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 6 , 7_, 3 8 2 - 3 8 9 . E d w a r d s , W. The t h e o r y o f d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . B u l l e t i n , 1 9 5 4 , 5JL_, 3 8 0 - 4 1 7 . E d w a r d s , W. Psychology,  Behavioural decision 1961, 12, 473 - 498.  theory.  Psychological Annual  E d w a r d s , W. Subjective probabilities inferred P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1 9 6 2 , 69_, 1 0 9 - 1 3 5 .  Review  of  from d e c i s i o n s .  E i s l e r , R.M., F r e d e r i k s e n , L.W., & P e t e r s o n , G.L. The r e l a t i o n ship of c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s to the e x p r e s s i o n of a s s e r t i v e n e s s . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 8 , 9, 4 1 9 - 4 2 7 .  134 E i s l e r , R.M., H e r s e n , M., & M i l l e r , P.M. Shaping components o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o u r w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s and f e e d b a c k . Ameri can J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y , 1 9 7 4 , 13_1, 1 3 4 4 - 1 3 4 7 . E i s l e r , R.M., H e r s e n , M., M i l l e r , P.M., & B l a n c h a r d , E.B. S i t u a t i o n a l determinants of a s s e r t i v e behaviours. Journal C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 5 , 43_, 3 3 0 - 3 4 0 .  of  E i s l e r , R.M., M i l l e r , P.M., & H e r s e n , M. Components of a s s e r t i v e behaviour. J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 3 , 28, 295 - 2 9 9 . F i e d l e r , D., & B e a c h , L.R. On t h e d e c i s i o n t o be a s s e r t i v e . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 8 , 46^, 537 F l o w e r s , J.V. S i m u l a t i o n and r o l e p l a y i n g m e t h o d s . & A.P. G o l d s t e i n ( E d s . ) , H e l p i n g p e o p l e c h a n g e . New Pergamon P r e s s I n c . , 1975.  546.  I n F. K a n f e r York:  F l o w e r s , J.V., & G u e r r a , J . The use o f c l i e n t c o a c h i n g i n assertion t r a i n i n g with large groups. Community Mental H e a l t h J o u r n a l , 1 1 9 7 4 , 10, 414 - 4 1 7 . F r i e d m a n , P.H. T h e e f f e c t s o f m o d e l i n g a n d r o l e p l a y i n g on assertive behaviour. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1968). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1969, 29, 3557B 4901B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 69 - 9 1 2 ) . G a l a s s i , M.D., & G a l a s s i , J.P. The e f f e c t s o f r o l e p l a y i n g v a r i a t i o n s on t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o u r . Behaviour T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 6 , 7, 3 4 3 - 3 4 7 . G a m b r i l l , E.D. B e h a v i o u r M o d i f i c a t i o n . Bass P u b l i s h e r s , 1978.  San  Francisco:  Jossey  G a m b r i l l , E . D . , & R i c h e y , C.A. An a s s e r t i o n i n v e n t o r y f o r u s e i n a s s e s s m e n t and r e s e a r c h . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 5 , 6^, 5 5 0 G o l d s m i t h , J . B . , & M c F a l l , R.M. D e v e l o p m e n t and e v a l u a t i o n o f an i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i 1 1 - t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m f o r p s y c h i a t r i c i n p a t ients. J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 5 , 8_4, 51 - 5 8 . G r e e n w a l d , D.P. The b e h a v i o u r a l a s s e s s m e n t o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l s k i l l and s o c i a l a n x i e t y . i n f e m a l e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8, 9 2 5 - 9 3 8 . G u i l f o r d , J . P . , & Z i m m e r m a n , W.S. The Gui1 f o r d - Z i m m e r m a n Temperament Survey. Beverly H i l l s : Sheridan Psychological S e r v i c e s , 1956. G u t r i d e , M.E., G o l d s t e i n , A . P . , & H u n t e r , G.F. The use o f m o d e l i n g and r o l e p l a y i n g t o i n c r e a s e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n among asocial psychiatric patients. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 40, 408 - 415.  561.  135 H e d q u i s t , F . J . , & W e i n h o l d , B.K. B e h a v i o u r a l g r o u p c o u n s e l i n g with s o c i a l l y anxious and u n a s s e r t i v e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 0 , 17., 2 3 7 - 2 4 2 . H e r s e n , M., E i s l e r , R.M., & M i l l e r , P.M. Development o f a s s e r tive responses: C l i n i c a l , measurement and r e s e a r c h c o n s i d e r ations. B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h a n d T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 3 , 1JU 505 - 5 2 1 . H e r s e n , M., E i s l e r , R.M., M i l l e r , P.M., J o h n s o n , M.B., & P i n k s t o n , S.G. E f f e c t s o f p r a c t i c e , i n s t r u c t i o n s , a n d m o d e l i n g on 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 u r . Behaviour Research a n d T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 3 , U, 443 - 4 5 1 . Hoi 1 a n d s w o r t h , J . G . J r . F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n ship between expressed s o c i a l f e a r and a s s e r t i v e n e s s . Behavi our R e s e a r c h a n d T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 6 , V\_, 8 5 - 8 7 . H o l l a n d s w o r t h , 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 a g g r e s s i o n : Some b e h a v i o u r a l g u i d e l i n e s . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8_. 3 4 7 - 3 5 2 . H o i 1 a n d s w o r t h , J . G . J r . , & C o o l e y , M.L. P r o v o k i n g a n g e r a n d gaining compliance with assertive vs. aggressive responses. B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 8 , 9_, 6 4 0 - 6 4 6 . Hoi 1 a n d s w o r t h , J . G . J r . , & W a l l , K.E. Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n assertive behaviour: An e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Journal of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 7 , 24, 217 - 222. H o l m s t r o m , V., & B e a c h , L.R. S u b j e c t i v e e x p e c t e d u t i l i t y and c a r e e r p r e f e r e n c e s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1 9 7 3 , 10., 2 0 1 - 2 0 7 . J a f f e , P . G . , & C a r l s o n , P.M. R e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y o f modeling and i n s t r u c t i o n s i n e l i c i t i n g s o c i a l behaviour from c h r o n i c psychiatric patients. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 44, 200 - 207. K a p l a n , D.M. On s h y n e s s . International a n a l y s i s , 1 9 7 2 , 53., 4 3 9 - 4 5 3 .  Journal o f Psycho-  Kazdin, A.E. E f f e c t s o f c o v e r t modeling, m u l t i p l e models, and model r e i n f o r c e m e n t on a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o u r . Behaviour Therapy, 1 9 7 6 , 7, 2 1 1 - 2 2 2 . K l e i n m u n t z , B. ( E d ) . F o r m a l R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Human New Y o r k : John Wiley & Sons, I n c . , 1968.  Judgement.  L e v e n s o n , R.W. & G o t t m a n , J . M . " T o w a r d t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f social competence. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 197'8, 4 6 , 4 5 3 - 4 6 2 . L i b e t , J . M . , & L e w i n s o h n , P.M. Concept o f social s k i l l with reference to the behaviour of depressed persons. Journal of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 3 , 4 0 , 304 - 312.  136 L i t t l e , L :'M., C u r r a n , J . P . , & G i l b e r t , F . S . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s u b j e c t r e c r u i t m e n t p r o c e d u r e s i n t h e r a p y a n a l o g u e s t u d i e s on h e t e r o s e x u a l - s o c i a l a n x i e t y . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8, 24 L o w e , M.R., & C a u t e l a , J . K . A s e l f - r e p o r t m e a s u r e o f skill. B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 8 , 9., 5 3 5 - 5 4 4 .  social  M a r z i l l i e r , J.S., Lambert, C , & K e l l e t t , J . A c o n t r o l l e d e v a l u a t i o n o f s y s t e m a t i c d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and s o c i a l skills training f o r s o c i a l l y inadequate psychiatric patients. B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h a n d T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 6 , _L4, 2 2 5 - 2 3 8 . M a r z i l l i e r , J . S . , & W i n t e r , K. S u c c e s s a n d f a i l u r e i n s o c i a l skills training: Individual differences. Behaviour Research a n d T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 8 , 16_, 67 - 8 4 . M c F a l l , R.M. & L i l l e s a n d , D.B. Behaviour rehearsal with m o d e l i n g and c o a c h i n g i n a s s e r t i o n t r a i n i n g . Journal of A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971 , 77, 313 - 3 2 3 . M c F a l l , R.M., & M a r s t o n , A.R. An e x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f behaviour rehearsal i n assertive training. J o u r n a l of Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 76, 295 - 303. M c F a l l , R.M., & T w e n t y m a n , C T . F o u r e x p e r i m e n t s on t h e r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f r e h e a r s a l , m o d e l i n g , and c o a c h i n g t o assertion training. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 81, 199 - 218. Mehrabian, 1972.  A.  Nonverbal  Communication.  Chicago:  A t h e r t o n , Inc  M e l n i c k , J . , & S t o c k e r , R.B. An e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e behavioural rehearsal with feedback technique i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s training. B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8, 2 2 7 - 2 2 8 . M i t c h e l l , T.R. & B e a c h , L . R . A review of occupational preference and c h o i c e r e s e a r c h u s i n g e x p e c t a n c y t h e o r y and d e c i s i o n theory. J o u r n a l o f O c c u p a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 6 , 4_9, 2 3 1 - 2 4 8 M i t c h e l l , T.R., & B i g l a n , A. Instrumentality theories: Current uses i n psychology. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 1 , 7_6, 4 3 2 - 4 5 4 M u c h i n s k y , P.M., & F i t c h , M.K. Subjective expected u t i l i t y a c a d e m i c p r e f e r e n c e s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1 9 7 5 , 14, 2 1 7 - 2 2 6 .  and  N i e t z e l , M.T., M a r t o r a n o , R.D., & M e l n i c k , J . T h e e f f e c t s o f c o v e r t m o d e l i n g w i t h and w i t h o u t r e p l y t r a i n i n g on t h e d e v e l o p ment and 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 . Behavi our T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8, 183 - 1 9 2 .  137 P e t e r s o n , C.R., & B e a c h , L . R . Man a s a n i n t u i t i v e P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 6 7 , 6 8 , 29 - 4 6 . P o l l a r d , W.E., s o c i a l power.  statistician.  & M i t c h e l l , T.R. D e c i s i o n t h e o r y a n a l y s i s o f P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 2 , 7_8, 4 3 3 - 4 4 6 .  Q u i n s e y , V . L . , & V a r n e y , G.W. S o c i a l s k i l l s game: A general method f o r t h e modeling and p r a c t i c e o f a d a p t i v e b e h a v i o u r s . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8, 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 . R a t h u s , S.A. A n e x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g in a group s e t t i n g . J o u r n a l o f B e h a v i o u r Therapy and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , . 1 9 7 2 , 3 , 81 - 8 6 . R a t h u s , S.A. A 3 0 - i t e m s c h e d u l e f o r a s s e s s i n g a s s e r t i v e B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 3 , 4, 3 9 8 - 4 0 6 .  behaviour.  Rehm, L . P . , & M a r s t o n , A.R. Reduction of social anxiety t h r o u g h m o d i f i c a t i o n o f s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t : An i n s t i g a t i o n t h e r a p y t e c h n i q u e . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 8 , 32^, 5 6 5 - 5 7 4 . R i c h , A.R., & S c h r o e d e r , H.E. R e s e a r c h i s s u e s i n a s s e r t i v e n e s s training. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 6 , 8J3 , 1 0 8 1 - 1 0 9 6 . R i c h a r d s o n , F.C., & T a s t o , D.L. D e v e l o p m e n t and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f a s o c i a l a n x i e t y i n v e n t o r y . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 6 , 7_, 4 5 3 - 5 6 2 , Rimm, D . C . , S n y d e r , J . J . . , D e p u e , R.A., H a a n s t a d , M . J . & A r m s t r o n g , D.P. A s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g v e r s u s r e h e a r s a l and t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f m a k i n g an a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e . Behaviour Research a n d T h e r a p y , 1-976 ,' 1 4 , 3 1 5 - 3 2 1 . R o s e n t h a l , T . L . , & Reese, S.L. The e f f e c t s m o d e l i n g on a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o u r . Behaviour 1976, 14, 463 - 469.  o f c o v e r t and o v e r t R e s e a r c h and T h e r a p y ,  R o y c e , W.S., & A r k o w i t z , H. C l a r i f i c a t i o n o f s o m e i s s u e s concerning subject recruitment procedures i n therapy analogue studies. B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 7 , 8_, 64 - 6 9 . R o y c e , W.S., & A r k o w i t z , H. M u l t i m o d a l e v a l u a t i o n o f p r a c t i c e i n t e r a c t i o n s as t r e a t m e n t f o r s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n . Journal of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1978, 46, 239 - 245. Savage, L . J . The f o u n d a t i o n s o f s t a t i s t i c s .  New Y o r k :  W i l e y , 1954.  S c h i n k e , S . P . , & R o s e , S.D. Interpersonal skill training in groups. J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 23, 442 - 448. S c h w a r t z , R.M., & G o t t m a n , J . M . T o w a r d a t a s k a n a l y s i s o f assertive behaviour. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 6 , 4_4, 9 1 0 - 9 2 0 .  138 S e r b e r , 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 o f B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1972, 13, 179 - 183. S h e p h e r d , G. Social skills training; problem--some f u r t h e r data. Behaviour 1 9 7 8 , 1_6, 287 - 2 8 8 . S m i t h , R.E., & S a r a s o n , I.G. Social of n e g a t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l f e e d b a c k . C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975', 429.  The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n R e s e a r c h and T h e r a p y ,  a n x i e t y and t h e e v a l u a t i o n J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and  T h o r p e , G.L., Amatu, H . I . , B l a k e y , R.S., & B u r n s , L . E . C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f o v e r t i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e h e a r s a l s and " s p e c i f i c i n s i g h t " to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; o f s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a i n i n g : A preliminary study. B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 6 , 7_, 5 0 4 - 5 1 1 . T u r n e r , S.M., & A d a m s , H . E . E f f e c t s o f a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g on t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s . B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h and T h e r a p y , 1977, 15, 475 - 483. T v e r s k y , A . , & K a h n e m a n , D. Availability: A heuristic for j u d g i n g f r e q u e n c y and p r o b a b i l i t y . Cognitive Psychology, 1 9 7 3 , 5, 2 0 7 - 2 3 2 . T v e r s k y , A . , & K a h n e m a n , D. Judgement under u n c e r t a i n t y : H e u r i s t i c s and. b i a s e s . S c i e n c e , 1 9 7 4 , 185 , 1 1 2 4 - 1 1 3 1 . T w e n t y m a n , C . T . , & M c F a l l , R.M. Behavioural training of s o c i a l s k i l l s i n shy males. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 5 , 4 3 , 384 - 3 9 5 . W a r r e n , N . J . , & G i l n e r , F.H. Measurement of p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i v e behaviours: The b e h a v i o u r a l t e s t o f t e n d e r n e s s e x p r e s s i o n . B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 8 , 9_, 1 7 8 - 1 8 4 . W a t s o n , D., & F r i e n d , R. Measurement of s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e anxiety. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 6 9 , 33., 4 4 8 - 4 5 7 . W e i s s , R.L. assessment. assessment.  Operant c o n d i t i o n i n g techniques i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l I n P. M c R e y n o l d s ( E d s . ) , A d v a n c e s i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l Palo Alto: S c i e n c e and B e h a v i o u r , 1968.  W h i t e , W.C. J r . , & B e r g e r , F. B e h a v i o u r r e h e a r s a l a n d s o c i a l competence: A p i l o t study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , 2J3, 5 6 7 - 5 7 0 . W o l f e , J . L . , & F o d o r , I.G. M o d i f y i n g a s s e r t i v e b e h a v i o u r i n women: A c o m p a r i s o n o f 3 a p p r o a c h e s . Behaviour Therapy, 1 9 7 7 , 8, 5 6 7 - 5 7 4 .  139 W o l p e , J . , & L a z a r u s , A.A. New Y o r k : Pergamon P r e s s ,  Behaviour 1966.  therapy  techniques.  Wright, J.C. A comparison of s y s t e m a t i c desensiti.zation and s o c i a l s k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n i n t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a s o c i a l fear. B e h a v i o u r T h e r a p y , 1976 , 205 - 210.. Y o u n g , E . R . , Rimm, D . C , & K e n n e d y , T.D. An e x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f m o d e l i n g and v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n t h e modification of assertive behaviour. Behaviour Research a n d T h e r a p y , 1 9 7 3 , U, 317 - 3 1 9 . Z i m b a r d o , P.G. Shyness: What i t i s , w h a t t o do a b o u t i t . Menlo Park: A d d i s o n - Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1977.  

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.831.1-0100256/manifest

Comment

Related Items