AN ELEMENTAL MODEL OF ASSERTIVE BEHAVIOR: THE EFFECTS
OF ATTRACTION, AUTHORITY, AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION
ELEMENTS ON PERCEIVED ASSERTIVE BEHAVIOR
by
JOSEPH MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, B.S., M.S.
A DISSERTATION
IN PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate FacuHy of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfinment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
May, 1977 frC-
i/
/V^, ^..V' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development, modification, and writing of a dissertation of this nature is a cumulative effort. I acknowledge the comments, con- structive criticisms, and editing contributions from committee members and non-committee colleagues.
I recognize the special contributions, tremendous effort, and professional courage of Professor Richard McGlynn for supporting this theoretical-empirical document. Further, I wish to acknowledge the support provided by Professor Philip Marshall. The humanism and gentle motivation given by Professor Robert Larson were not forgotten. I also acknowledge the comments of Professor Leonard James.
Professor Theodore Andreychuk was instrumental in shaping my professional goals. His efforts reflected the true meaning of Adlerian social interest.
Finally, Ms. Brenda Underwood and Dr. Rebecca Schwartz deserve special honors for their enduring professional and personal support in my behalf.
n TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Assertive Training 2 Clinical Studies 2 Experimental Studies 7 Issues of Terminology 9 Clinical Position 10 Behavioral Position 13 Theoretical Perspective 22 Traditional Perspectives 22 Alternate Perspective 24 Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Situational Elements 29 Intrapersonal 32 Interpersonal 38 Situational 40 Selection of Elements 42 Objectives of the Study 45
2. METHOD 49
Subjects 49 Design 50 Stimulus Materials 51 Dependent Measures 58 Procedure 59
m 3. RESULTS 62
Experiment I 62 Experiment II 71 Self-Perception 73
Other-Perception 78
4. DISCUSSION 84
Overview of Results 84 Relative Status 84 Observer-Perception 84 Self-Perception 85 Other-Perception 85 Mutual Liking 87 Observer-Perception 87 Self-Perception 87 Other-Perception 88 Type of Expression 89 Observer-Perception . 89 Self-Perception 89 Other-Perception 90 Fishbein and Ajzen Model 91 Implications of Results for the Ecosystems Model .... 94 Future Studies 105 5. CONCLUSION 108
REFERENCES 111
APPENDIX 118
A. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OBSERVER-PERCEPTION DIMENSION OF EXPERIMENT I 119 B. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SELF-PERCEPTION DIMENSION
AND OTHER-PERCEPTION DIMENSION OF EXPERIMENT II 121
C. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES FOR OBSERVER-PERCEPTION .... 124
D. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES FOR SELF-PERCEPTION 131
IV E. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES FOR OTHER-PERCEPTION 138
F. FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE COLLEGE SELF-EXPRESSION SCALE ... 145 LIST OF TABLES
1. A Comparison of Nonassertive, Assertive, and Aggressive Behavior 12
2. Sample Questionnaire Assessing Subject's Perception of a Response when Viewed in a Hypothetical Situation 60
3. Means of Dependent Variables Under All Conditions of Experiment I: Observer-Perception 63
4. Correlations, Regression Coefficients, and Multiple Correlations of Attitude and Subjective Norm on Intentions to Behave Assertively 70
5. Results of Regression Equations for Experiment I and Experiment II 72
6. Means of Dependent Variables Under All Conditions of Experiment II: Self-Perception 74
7. Means of Dependent Variables Under All Conditions of Experiment II: Other-Perception 79
8. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Assertion- Aggression as the Dependent Measure in the Observer-Perception Situation 124
9. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Nonassertion-Assertion as the Dependent Measure in the Observer-Perception Situation 125
10. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Attraction as the Dependent Measure in the Observer-Perception Situation 126
VI 11. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression tC) with Anticipated Consequences as the Dependent Measure in the Observer-Perception Situation 127
12. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Attitude Toward the Behavior as the Dependent Measure in the Observer-Perception Situation 128
13. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Subjective Norm as the Dependent Measure in the Observer-Perception Situation 129
14. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Behavioral Intention as the Dependent Measure in the Observer-Perception Situation 130
15. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Assertion-Aggression as the Dependent Measure in the Self-Perception Situation ..... 131
16. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Nonassertion-Assertion as the Dependent Measure in the Self-Perception Situation 132
17. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Attraction as the Dependent Measure in the Self-Perception Situation 133
18. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Anticipated Consequences as the Dependent Measure in the Self-Perception Situation 134
19. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Attitude Toward the Behavior as the Dependent Measure in the Self-Perception Situation 135
vn 20. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Subjective Norm as the Dependent Measure in the Self-Perception Situation 136
21. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Behavioral Intention as the Dependent Measure in the Self-Perception Situation 137
22. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Assertion-Aggression as the Dependent Measure in the Other-Perception Situation 138
23. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Nonassertion-Assertion as the Dependent Measure in the Other-Perception Situation 139
24. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Attraction as the Dependent Measure in the Other-Perception Situation ..... 140
25. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Anticipated Consequences as the Dependent Measure in the Other-Perception Situation 141
26. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Attitude Toward Behavior as the Dependent Measure in the Other-Perception Situation 142
27. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Subjective Norm as the Dependent Measure in the Other-Perception Situation 143
28. Analysis of Variance for Relative Status (A), Mutual Liking (B), and Type of Expression (C) with Behavioral Intention as the Dependent Measure in the Other-Perception Situation 144
• • • vm 29. Percentages for Assertion Factors from the College Self-Expression Scale 148
30. Assertion Factors from the College Self-Expression Scale 149
IX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Two Schematic Models for the Assessment and Investigation of Assertive Behavior 17
2. Assertive Behavior - A Schematic of an Ecological Approach for Intra-, Inter-Personal, and Situational Elements 26
3. Interaction Between Relative Status and Type of Expression on Self-Perceived Assertive Behavior 76 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The popular literature of the general public and the more eso- teric literature of the psychologists have both reflected a growing awareness of a complex set of behaviors subsumed under the broad title of "assertiveness." Although assertiveness has become increasingly visible in the literature, little effort has been directed toward systematic investigation of this construct.
The increased emphasis on this newly emerging construct has raised various research and applied questions suitable for scientific investigation. For example, the interested psychologist might ask: just what is assertiveness; is it the same to all people; why is it so popular; and, finally, is it really an expression of a prosocial response?
The general purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual model of assertive behavior and to examine the functional relationship between assertive behavior, attraction, and status variables. A corol- lary purpose was to explore the intention to behave assertively in specific situations. Assertive Training
Clinical Studies
In spite of the inherent difficulties in defining assertive behavior as a dependent variable, there has been a recent proliferation of reported studies attesting to the efficacy of various assertive training methods and the examination of assertive behavior (Hersen,
Eisler, & Miller, 1973).
Various approaches to assertive training have been employed with institutionalized patients. Palmer (1973) reported chronic schiz- ophrenics gained self-esteem and decreased fear of their inhibited aggression as a result of bioenergetic assertive techniques. Palmer defined such techniques as screaming, tug of war with towels, and hit- ting a couch as assertive behaviors from a bioenergetic perspective.
The dependent measure of increased assertiveness was simply Palmer's observations of subject-patient behavior. Assertive behavior was con- sidered to be "open experiencing feeling of inhibited aggression"
(Palmer's definition). Another study employing a chronic schizophrenic population was that of Weinman, Gelbart, Wallace, and Post (1972), which attributed lower self-reported anxiety and increased assertive behavior via assertive training based on systematic desensitization.
This particular study compared three treatment methods—systematic desensitization, relaxation, and milieu (i.e., essentially operant reinforcement by hospital aides). The dependent measures were 3 self-report by the patients. Longin and Rooney (1973) reported similar results with schizophrenics using behavioral rehearsal techniques in sixteen different interpersonal situations. These investigators assigned patients to either an assertive-covert group, assertive-overt group, or a control group. The experimental group patients were then exposed to the sixteen interpersonal situations. The patients in the overt group were required to rehearse their responses out loud while the covert group rehearsed in their imagination. All subjects' responses were rated by three nursing aides in a pre-post test design.
The patients in the overt group were rated as more assertive. Several points of caution should be raised in reference to these populations.
First, the studies failed to report whether the subject-patients were
involved in any program of chemotherapy. If the hypothesis is correct that nonassertiveness is reflective of interpersonal anxiety, as sug- gested by Wolpe (1973), then the use of heavy tranquilizers alone may
have reduced the causal interpersonal anxiety and enhanced the treatment effects. Second, in a study by Hanson and Bencomo (1972), subjects voluntarily participated in their investigation for extra tokens from the institution's token system. It is reasonable to assume that the nonassertive psychotic might not have volunteered by the virtue of his nonassertiveness, thus adversely influencing the results. Third, no standard operational definition of assertive behavior was employed in any of the studies. Each investigation defined assertive behavior as 4 it was deemed appropriate for the special purpose of the study. Obvi- ously, discrepancies between definitions existed, thus limiting the generalization of the studies' results.
Martorano (1973) hypothesized that chronic alcoholism was reflective of nonassertiveness conjoint with interpersonal anxiety. He then substituted assertive behavior via role-playing for alcohol. In contrast to his hypothesis, his results showed increased levels of intoxication in the patients following assertion training.
The prior discussion may have given the impression that asser- tive training is limited solely to unassertive personalities regardless of expressed symptomatologies. Alberti and Emmons (1970) set forth the novel consideration that assertive training may prove valuable for the generally aggressive individual, who is typically aggressive in ewery type of situation. They suggested that aggression is an inadequate response to social anxiety, and the generally aggressive person may find himself with few friends and little esteem from his acquaintances due to his abusive behavior. Presumably, the need for acceptance and affec- tion is equally necessary for this individual. He has failed to assert himself appropriately but, rather, he responds aggressively, which reflects his anxiety. His inability to react with emotional honesty has ended in frustration. They concluded by suggesting the aggressive personality would be aided by assertive training--that is, substituting the appropriate adaptive assertive response for the unadaptive 5 aggressive response. Although not examining this consideration per se,
Booker's dissertation study (1972) investigated the frustration- aggression hypothesis suggested by Patterson, Littman, and Bricker
(1967). This hypothesis expected a greater probability of aggression from children with a history of frequent unsuccessful attempts at assertion. The result of Booker's work yielded no significant correla- tion between frequency of successful assertion and frequency of aggres- sion; however, this contradictory result does not disprove the Alberti and Emmons proposal. Alberti and Emmons defined assertion as including respect for the second party's rights, whereas Booker defined assertion as dominance in which a child forces another child to conform to his
own activity. There would appear, then, to be separate behavioral
interpretations of assertiveness. Further, the subject's rating of assertive behaviors in the Booker study was based on teacher observa- tions. One teacher's perception of assertion may have been different from another teacher's perception.
In terms of single subject investigations, studies have illus- trated assertive training effectiveness in the elimination of hallucina- tory and delusional behavior in a paranoid schizophrenic (Nydegger,
1972). This training was followed by a home assertive program in which the patient remained symptom-free for over two years.
Fensterheim (1972a) reported a marital case in which the couple reestablished sexual union and communication through systematic 6 desensitization and assertion training. Fensterheim Cl972b) provided a clinical description of the efficacy of assertion training in groups.
Macpherson (1972) employed an operant technique in a single patient design study to increase assertiveness. In this case, a forty-five-year-old housewife exhibited, first, a lack of assertiveness toward her mother and, second, aggression toward her husband. Previous treatment consisted of psychotherapy, group therapy, and chemotherapy.
Her life history illustrated sixteen years of anxiety and hysterical globus, resulting in an emaciated appearance. The patient, role playing situations in alternating sequence, received electric shock for each unassertive statement in the Mother Situations and an assertive response was immediately followed by the therapist's saying, "Good!" Conversely, in the Husband Situations, aggressive responses were punished and correct nonaggressive responses were rewarded. Macpherson reported behavioral improvement in addition to weight gain.
Finally, Edwards (1972) described assertion training to be an effective curative agent in the case of an incestuous homosexual pedophilia. His procedure consisted of requiring the husband to role play confident heterosexual advances toward his wife.
Inasmuch as these illustrations provide a myriad of cures attributable to assertive training, the effects attributed to training are too varied to explain the certain variables in such techniques.
Consequently, these examples point to the need for carefully constructed 7 investigations with adequate control groups. Further, the overwhelming lack of agreement as to what constitutes assertive behavior suggests a therapeutically cavalier approach to application of techniques.
Apparently, these studies applied a universal diagnosis of "nonasser- tiveness" to an extreme variety of clients.
Experimental Studies
In recent years a sizable number of experimental studies have been published employing assertion training. Percell (1973a) con- trasted the effect of assertion training on mental inpatients in rela- tionship therapy (control group) and behavioral assertion group train- ing. Percell's results depicted greater individual self-acceptance, less interpersonal anxiety, and greater assertiveness based on three paper-pencil measures among patients receiving behavioral assertive training.
Lazarus (1966) examined the treatment efficacies of behavioral rehearsal, nondirective therapy, and direct advice for effecting behavior change toward assertiveness. Results from the study illus- trated a 92 percent improvement rate in the_behavioral rehearsal group, contrasted with 44 percent improvement rate for the advice group and
32 percent for the nondirective group. The criterion of improvement was self-reported evidence that the patient was behaving adaptively in the area which had previously constituted a problem. Lazarus failed to 8 use a control group and administered all three therapeutic procedures; therefore, the study lacked rigorous standards.
Rathus (1972, 1973a), in a series of treatment comparative studies, demonstrated assertive training vis-a-vis behavioral rehearsal and modeling to be more effective based on his own paper-pencil instru- ment than discussion groups, placebo groups, and control groups. The self-report measure indicated significant posttest gains for the behavioral group. In this particular study, Rathus (1973a) employed his own undergraduate class as subjects in addition to administering both treatments. It would be reasonable to assume in these procedures some bias may have influenced the results. Additionally, assertive behavior as such was never defined.
The essential vehicle in many of the behavioral assertive studies for teaching assertive behavior has been some variant of model- ing (e.g., Rehm & Marston, 1968; Perkins, 1972; Weinman et al., 1972;
Serber, 1972). Under the broad rubric of modeling, investigations have illustrated many variants (e.g., role-playing, behavioral rehearsal).
Rathus depicted scenes for college coeds via audiotape (1973b) and videotape (1972), and the subjects' responses were recorded and rated.
In both studies, Rathus reported positive results through the use of modeling. Again, as mentioned earlier, a clear definition of assertive behavior was not offered. Serber CT972) advocated teaching both verbal and nonverbal assertive responses. A method of teaching nonverbal 9 assertive responses based on six nonverbal variables was applied to a single subject in a pre- posttest design. To this end, his study employed videotape feedback as a continuous assessment device; however, no set criteria for improvement were firmly established. Assertive behavior was defined in this study as "what is accepted in general usage . . . people don't shout during moments of tenderness, don't
smile when angry ..." (Serber, p. 179).
In summary, the psychological literature has illustrated a
tremendous increase of assertive-related articles. Interestingly,
little emphasis has been directed toward a sound operational definition
of assertive behavior. Consequently, the following section will attempt
to delineate a functional definition of assertiveness.
Issues of Terminology
As stated above, there is little consensus in the literature
as to the definition of assertiveness. Prior to about 1970, the avail-
able literature was limited to clinical case studies and anecdotal
reports (Cautela, 1966; Lazarus, 1966; Wolpe S Lazarus, 1966).
The major obstacle facing these researchers and therapists has
been the development of operational definitions of nonassertivjeness
behavior, assertive behavior, and aggressive behavior. It has proved difficult to define or illuminate the specific behavior which consti-
tutes an appropriate assertive response within the context of various
interpersonal situations. 10 Clinical Position
Salter (1949), the earliest worker in assertion training, reported the nonassertive person as suffering from "constipation of the emotions," his term for nonassertiveness (p. 47). Salter promoted assertive training as the primary counseling tool to eliminate the prob- lems of behavior dysfunctioning. For Salter, socially unadaptive behavior resulted from inhibition, and the patient had only to stimulate free expression of his emotions to return to a healthy homeostatic balance.
Wolpe C1973) defined the assertive response as ". . . the proper expression of any emotion other than anxiety-inhibited appropri- ate interpersonal responsiveness" (p. 85). It is sufficient merely to state that such a generalized definition lacks functional utility for most investigative purposes. Wolpe further reported that assertive behavior involves essentially aggressive behavior but may include also the friendly, affectionate, and other nonanxious feelings. Historically, this inclusion of positive aspects is distinctive because prior to
Wolpe's interpretation, assertive responses were considered synonymous with aggressive responses. Unfortunately, little research literature focused on effective methods to help the patient express his positive feelings. Logically, it would seem important to devote more investiga- tion to this area. By learning to express positive feelings in inter- personal situations, the client would receive reciprocally more positive 11 feedback from others, which would reinforce his assertiveness and self-worth. The clinical stereotype of the nonassertive individual depicts a passive, inhibited, totally undemanding sort of person incap- able of making any decisions.
The majority of professionals writing in one clinical litera-
ture Ce.g., Percell, 1973a, 1973b; Galassi & Galassi, 1974; Galassi,
Delo, Galassi, & Bastien, 1974) have employed the definition of asser-
tiveness provided by Alberti and Emmons C1970); that is, ". . . the
behavior which enables a person to act in his own best interests, or
stand up for himself without anxiety, to express his rights without denying the rights of others" (p. 2). To further delineate the differ-
ences between nonassertive, assertive, and aggressive behaviors,
Alberti and Emmons provided their patients with a chart similar to that
in table 1. They went on to provide numerous situations depicting all three responses to their patients. Rathus (1973) furnished his clients with a somewhat different set of responses to illustrate assertiveness, but he still followed the Alberti and Emmons orientation. In contrast, the majority of clinicians have not concerned themselves with providing rudimentary operational dsfinitions of the three constructs (nonasser- tiveness, assertiveness, and aggressiveness). Instead, the therapist models sufficient illustrations of each construct response to his patients in the hope the patients will imitate the appropriate response. 12 " o co > > • c c Q. •f- +J r— > o > co S- 4-> 3 .»-> >>r- A rj s- O •1—1— {/) JC
Additionally, the difficulty of working with value judgment oriented concepts such as "rights" and "own best interests" in the definition has limited severely the utility of the definition. This is not an indictment of the previous assertive literature but, rather, emphasizes the distinction between the demands of experimental investigations and clinical realities. The practicing clinician is often limited by the practical realities of a heavy client load. He has little opportunity to follow in vivo individual clients to define and assess their complex behaviors. However, a more operational definition of assertive behav- iors may prove applicable to the clinic setting and promote a more pro- ductive therapeutic strategy. By this, it is meant the clinician could establish a behavioral vocabulary in which the client and therapist would both be considering the same behavior along the same dimension in a comnon frame of reference.
Behavioral Position
Salter (1949) proposed six modes of behavior to overcome inhibi- tion and enhance "excitation," his term meaning assertiveness. These are: / / / /
14 1. Feeling Talk - The client should provide the deliberate utterance of spontaneously felt emotions—e.g., "Gee, I love you," or,
"That behavior disgusts me." r\ 2. Facial Talk - This is the active portrayal of the emotions in one's face and movement.
3. Contradict and Attack - The client, when in disagreement, is to contradict and not provide catholic acceptance.
4. The use of "I" - The frequency of "I" should be discussed to involve the client in his expressed statements.
5. Express agreement when you are praised - Salter states false modesty is destructive. The client must accept praise honestly.
6. Improvise - By this, the client must display spontaneous responses to immediate stimuli.
Thus, Salter defined assertive behavior from a limited behav- ioral orientation--that is, describing the actual behaviors that com- prise the construct.
In contrast to the previous clinical literature which suggests implicitly a trait phenomenon, it follows from a behavioral position similar to Mischel's C1968) that an assertive response can only be defined in the context of situational determinants. To consider the concept of any classification of topographically similar behaviors as a trait, Mischel would argue, is meaningless. Mischel provided a lengthy treatise advocating the position that global personality measures and 15 actual nontest behaviors demonstrate low correlations. It is a short
logical transfer to conclude that previous assertive behavioral defi-
nitions and their subsequent paper-pencil assessment instruments prob-
ably do not illustrate actual client in vivo behaviors. When the
measures do correlate with client behavior, it is due to similar situa-
tional determinants influencing the assertive behavior. Consequently,
a sound definition of assertive behavior should include situationally
influenced components and operational terminology.
Cahoon (1972), another behaviorist, applied a behavioral analy-
sis to the problem of defining aggression. Borrowing from Cahoon's
ideas, a similar analysis can be made for defining assertive behavior.
The major impediment to defining the general construct of assertiveness
from a Cahoon perspective focuses on the connotation of intent or pur-
pose. To derive inferential states from observing the behavior con-
fuses the actual definition of assertive behavior. In the behaviorist
tradition, the inference of drive states provides little functional
utility. A construct should be related to both antecedent and conse-
quent conditions. Insufficient investigation has been devoted to the
specification of the antecedents and the consequences of assertive
behaviors to identify mediators of events such as intentional states.
The past failures to define adequately and classify assertive
responses have been due to the effort to locate topographically similar
characteristics in these responses. To illustrate the difficulty in 16 defining by response characteristics alone, imagine a husband and wife at supper in their own home. The husband states his preferences for various foods in a calm, polite, but firm manner. If the same husband emitted the identical response to his boss in his home, the behavior would not be assertive because the other individual (the boss) would be
insulted. At this point, it is apparent that the consequences of the act would label the behavior as assertive in one situation but not in another.
In short, assertive behaviors may not be topographically unique from aggressive or nonassertive responses. Assertion can only be defined by the singular relationship between a specifiable class of
stimulus events, a specifiable class of responses, and, finally, a
specifiable class of consequences contingent upon these responses. Such a breakdown would allow for several different kinds of assertiveness
Celicited, operant, modeled), which can all be systematized into a single behavioristic system (fig. 1). For example, one form of asser- tive behavior may be elicited by aversive stimulation, such as a room- mate with a noisy radio. The assertive behavior would be negatively reinforced by the removal of the noise generated by the roommate.
Another kind of assertive behavior may be employed and main- tained by securing reinforcing social attention. To illustrate, con- sider the coed who compliments a young man's basketball playing ability and thereby secures a date with him. 17
•a c «o
•!-> C C o S- O O •M o crt 5 4-> to 3 3 ro CO X X C to O JZ> 3 S- •a S- c O •'- cn O c
< nse q o eli e Q) J3 E 03 JO O O o S- o 18 A third class of assertive behavior may be defined by its func- tion to alter stimuli which may deprive a positive reinforcer to the individual and secure that reinforcer. The student who confronts his professor on an exam error and then receives the credit may illustrate best this third type of assertive behavior.
A fourth unique assertive behavior might be acquired through modeling the individual's parents and peers. In all these instances,
there are defined specific behaviors classified as assertive because of
their antecedent and consequent conditions. There is no reference to
the motives of the assertive individual nor to the teleological implica-
tions in all the cases.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) developed an attitude-behavior model
that could be applicable to the general understanding of assertive
behavior. From a Fishbein and Ajzen perspective, an assertive act only
can be defined and predicted by examining the preceding process compo-
nents as shown in figure 1. This expectancy-value model predicts that
personal and normative beliefs determine both the attitude toward the
actual behavior and the subjective norm concerning the behavior.
Finally, the strength of that intention either precipitates or blocks
the actual behavior expression. Employment of their conceptual frame- work requires the investigator to formulate explicit assumptions con- cerning the processes linking experimental manipulations and the 19 dependent variables. The Fishbein and Ajzen raodel will be elaborated upon in a later section.
«
Cahoon's model leads to emphasis on different types of asser- tive responses. Similarly, the Fishbein and Ajzen model requires the researcher to consider the specificity of the expressed behavior in relation to the situation. Their model's ability to delineate degrees of specificity limits the direction toward global assessments of par- ticular behaviors--e.g., assertion.
What constitutes a nonassertive response has important implica- tions for therapeutic strategy. For purposes of illustration, one could imagine a new client reporting to his therapist that he is non- assertive toward his wife. A number of questions arise: is the non- assertiveness itself a response, or a lack of a response, or is it the inhibition of a response? If the therapist subscribes to the initial position (i.e., nonassertiveness is a response), then nonassertiveness is a maladaptive response to be reconditioned. Consequently, operant conditioning procedures may suffice Ce.g.» Yates, 1970). Lazarus C1971);
Eisler, Miller, and Hersen C1973); and Serber C1971) contended that non- assertiveness is a lack of an appropriate response. They postulate that the client has never learned the appropriate responses. It would follow from this position that modeling and/or behavioral rehearsal procedures are more efficacious. As advocated alternatively by Wolpe
C1973), the client already possesses the appropriate response; although 20 anxiety blocks the expression of the response. This position would place heavy emphasis on relaxation techniques and other anxiety- relieving procedures.
It can be seen readily that in addition to the therapist's definition of assertive behaviors, his perspective of nonassertiveness
entails relevant therapeutic implications for his client.
Thus, there are two general definitional approaches to examine
the general construct of assertiveness. First is the global phenomeno-
logical approach employed by most clinicians and many researchers. The
College Self-Expression Scale developed by Galassi and Galassi C1974)
best typifies this strategy. Conversely, the behavioristic approach
advocated by Mischel (1968) and Cahoon C1972) rarely has been applied
rigorously to the classification of assertive behaviors.
Given the inadequacies of past and current definitions of asser-
tive behavior, the present investigation proposes an alternate, more
operational, and specific definition of assertive behavior. Assertive
behavior will be assumed to occur if the following conditions are
present: Cl) an interpersonal response incurring some degree of risk-
taking or anticipated fear defined by the individual; (2) stimulus
events define the behavior such that most observers would agree that
the individual's rights are being violated by the Other or the Other
needs enhancement; (3) the behavior itself restores equity, enhances
Other, and is always Self-enhancing; and (4) the behavioral 21 consequences are specific to the situation when the individual's rights are violated, equity is restored, Other desires enhancement, and/or
Self is enhanced.
From this lengthy but inclusive definition of assertive behav- ior, aggressive and nonassertive behavior can be defined. Nonassertive behavior is Other-enhancing behavior in a situation where the individ- ual's rights are being violated as agreed by most observers. Behavior that upsets interpersonal equity when the Other needs enhancement is aggressive behavior or ingratiation (see Jones & Wortman, 1975).
An example of an assertive response according to the proposed definition might be Bill telling his roommate to stop borrowing his clothes--e.g., "Tom, I really get annoyed when you wear my favorite shirts. As you never ask first or wash them, I can't allow you to borrow this new shirt." A positive or Other-enhancing assertive behavior might be illustrated by Bill's sincerely complimenting an unfamiliar female classmate--e.g., "Sally, I notice you always look so fresh each day. How do you do it?" Both examples entail risk-taking by Bill, anticipated consequences, violation of rights in the first example, and Other and Self-enhancement in the second example. Con- versely, the nonassertive behavior illustrates violation of individual rights with no Self-enhancement but Other-enhancement. Consider, for example, the situation in which the boss tells his secretary to go out during her lunch hour to buy his wife a gift. The secretary responds, 22 "Of course, Mr. Berkowitz. I kinda wanted to see my sister with whom
I had a lunch date, but I'll purchase Mrs. Berkowitz's gift." An aggressive behavior upsets the interpersonal equity when the Other needs enhancement. To illustrate, suppose Bill's roommate in the first example had retorted, "You selfish pig! Besides, that new shirt you're
so proud of is ugly anyway."
Although this proposed definition is rather lengthy, it does
encompass components that can be delineated operationally and examined.
Further, the definition lends itself to the development of a different
theoretical perspective in understanding assertive behavior. The following section considers this theoretical perspective.
Theoretical Perspective
The etiology of assertive behavior and subsequent research
strategies to examine this construct are largely dependent on the
investigator's theoretical orientation.
Traditional Perspectives
An investigator of a traditional analytic position would propose an examination of the patient's dynamic system through transference and interpretative techniques to comprehend better the assertive behaviors.
Unfortunately, the lack of operational definitions of this strategy would lend little clarification to the problems at hand. 23
Self-theorists, as exemplified by Meador and Rogers (1973), might employ an investigative strategy that focuses on the client's feelings of self-worth, actualizing potentials, and other esoteric variables. The self-theorist approach would be similar to the analytic approach in that the primary focus would be on the client's internal system rather than actual behaviors.
Adler, a precursor to modern system's approach, offered the
Life Style Concept—i.e., the individual's basic adaptive pattern.
This pattern is developed from the individual's perceptions of himself and his world as influenced by constitutional, developmental, cultural, and family factors. The Life Style provides a set of rules for the individual to bring order to his existence and experiences. The
Adlerians perceived behavior as teleological. This axiom that behavior has purpose and goal orientation implies the individual possesses some assessment of the consequences of a behavior. It follows that the individual having knowledge of the anticipated consequences and a goal for his behavior gives this Life Style concept an expectancy direction.
In short, behavior is future oriented. Given this framework, the
Adlerian therapist would perceive assertive behavior as a goal or pur- pose oriented act with some degree of expectancy for certain consequences.
Further, the assertive behavior would be influenced by the individual's perceptual interpretation based on his unique life style. To promote the assertive behavior, the therapist would embark on the task of U 24 X /^ demonstrating to the client the maladaptive purposes of his nonasser-
tive and/or aggressive responses. In addition, the client's own unique-
ness and self-worth would be emphasized to promote assertive behavior
and defense of individual personal rights.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Cahoon (1972) pointed out
that these approaches possess inherent difficulties of measurement and
inferential logic. Cahoon's system provides a third alternative
strategy. The strategy entails better definition of stimulus context
and response consequences and illuminates the specific functional
relationship between the antecedent environment, the actual behavior,
and the environmental consequences. The investigation would emphasize
a set of antecedent stimulus conditions that result in characteristic
modes of responding with subsequent identifiable consequences.
Alternate Perspective
An alternate strategy to examine assertive behavior was
developed by this investigator. Historically, it is an adaptation of
the ecosystem concept employed by biologists. Recently, specialists in
the area of family dynamics have made use of a similar systems concept
(e.g., Haley, 1971).
Assertive behavior in any given situation may be thought to
function in an assertive ecological system of psychological elements.
The system has a structure in the sense that it is composed of differing 25 elements or parts arranged in some undefined pattern. The interrela- tions between the constituent elements are the basis of this structure.
The degree of expressed assertive behavior is hypothesized to be at the vortex of the psychological structure in figure 2. It follows that the quality and quantity of the assertive behavior are related to the num- ber of elements in the system. More specifically, the assertive eco- systems of individuals formed by greater numbers of operating elements allow for an increased number of specific relations between attractive- ness, leadership, and so forth. The more complex the system, the greater is the required description.
The major point is that the "real structure" of a personality's assertive ecosystem is out of reach, but the complete structure may be reflected in the many aspects of the system that can be subjected to laboratory and natural observation: in the ratings of attractiveness, in the assessment of self-concept, in the taking of psychosocial history, and examination of other related variables.
As with a natural biological system, the assertive system demonstrates varying levels of elements. Assertive behavior itself is considered to be the primary element for this investigation. A primary element is that element which receives the major focus of investigation— i.e., the central object of study. Secondary elements are expressed by variables such as attraction, sex, and authority. Secondary elements are those elements that affect the primary element through reciprocating 26
*—«« 0) •a to ^— .^ j><: I O o fO fO S- JD JQ •a •a o cu cu > fO -a •f- to 4-> > S- C •I— c s- o U. (O 4-> rO O •r- S- fO CO •M S- -a C 4-> c rO 27 interactions. Secondary elements are composites of the tertiary ele- ments. That is, in specific instances, the interaction of all the ele- ments may dictate a specific secondary element (e.g., attraction), which may operate as a dominating element. This observation is based on the underlying principle of any ecosystem: adaptation of the organism (psychological, physical, and sociological) is determined by the relative value of any secondary and/or tertiary element (Margalef, 1969). As an illustration, some high degree of assertive behavior may be expressed when the attraction element provides the most efficacious adaptive strategy. In short, the relative influence of each element is constantly in motion with regard to assertive expression. Assertive behavior may interact with attraction needs in one situation but corre- late with self-concept needs in another circumstance. Given this framework, the researcher may choose to examine the relationship between assertive behavior and tertiary elements or the relation between assertive behavior and secondary elements. Or, finally, a parameter may be established to promote the dominance of any one ele- ment Ce.g., authority) and examine the relation with assertiveness created by that action. Practical situations impose severe limitations on theoretical possibilities of this systems model. Theoretically, it would be possi- ble to isolate an individual, assess the intrapersonal variable, and then subject him to several situations varying the external or 28 interpersonal elements. Unfortunately, this strategy raises a number of practical considerations: temporal factors, financial constraints, and ethical concerns. In its original development, the proposed systems model con- sisted of four secondary elements Cself-concept, history, social norms, and personal norms) residing in the intrapersonal domain. The inter- personal domain included nine secondary elements: consequence of behav- ior, helpfulness, liking, leadership, authority (relative status), attraction, compliance, conformity, and sex. These initial elements were selected from an examination of the College Self-Expression Scale (Galassi & Galassi, 1974) and the Rathus Assertiveness Scale (Rathus, 1973a). A frequency count revealed these elements to be the most cornnon social psychological variable implicitly stated in the two instruments' items. Careful deliberation suggested that many of the elements could be collapsed into two "master" elements: attraction and authority. For example, mutual liking could be considered synonymous with attrac- tion. Compliance, as demonstrated by Milgram C1963), is closely allied with authority variables. Conformity may be based on attractiveness, in that we conform to those to whom we are attracted and, similarly, to maintain our attractiveness, we often conform (Berkowitz, 1954). Con- sequently, it was felt that conformity could be subsumed justifiably into the attraction element. Initially, it was thought that helping 29 behavior may be a separate element interacting with assertive behavior, more specifically positive assertion (e.g., "Here, let me help you."). However, a search of the literature indicated that conformity and group size Ce.g., Latane & Darley, 1970) and the degree of individual respon- sibility Ce.g., Tilker, 1970) were the powerful determinants in exhibit- ing helping behavior. Consequently, helping behavior was dropped from the model. Leadership initially was also considered as a possible element; however, leadership is essentially a reflection of authority and, therefore, was incorporated into that element. The final model developed for this study is depicted in the aforementioned figure 2. The remaining sections will focus on secondary elements in the systems model and elaborate on the simplified interrelationships. Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and situational elements In the analogous biological ecosystem, the organism is but an actor in a larger natural play. There is the actor-organism composed of elements Ce.g., body temperature, maturation, species), and there are the other actor-organisms. It is often convenient for the biologist to first examine the organism and its productivity prior to surveying the total stage CMargalef, 1969). Similarly, the assertive ecosystem can be divided into secondary intrapersonal elements Cthe individual), secondary interpersonal elements Cthe other actors), and the actual characteristics of the situation. 30 It is germane at this point to establish the possible "per- spectives" of assertive behavior. First, there may be characteristics or elements of the person perceived by Self that may determine asser- tive behavior—i.e., how does he see himself in his environment. Second, there may be elements perceived by the Other that may influence the behavior--i.e., how does he see others viewing his behavior. To illustrate, "I perceive Bill as viewing me in a specific manner; conse- quently, I will behave accordingly." Third, the assertive behavior may be influenced by the actual characteristics of the situation or stage that are not influenced by either actor. In the instance of a natural disaster, circumstances may precipitate assertive behavior for survival value regardless of intra- and inter-personal elements. Additionally, an observer may have a distinctively different perception of the behav- ior although his perception does not influence the behavior as such. The complexity of the system is increased further when the investigator appreciates the phenomenon that characteristics of the situation Cdefined by the actor; defined by other actors; and the actual characteristics) may influence assertive behavior. In total, there may exist as many as nine possible perceptions or interpretations of the assertive system that could affect assertive behavior vis-a-vis reciprocity based on the perceptions. The considera- tion of differing perceptions is of critical importance when examining the expression of assertive behavior. Jones and Nisbett (1971) proposed 31 that individuals are inclined to attribute their own behavior to situa- tional stimuli, while observers of the same behavior attribute its expression to dispositional qualities of the actor. Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, and Maracek (1973) published a report of three experiments that demonstrated results consistent with the Jones and Nisbett hypothesis. In the first study, college student observers predicted an actor's future behavior would be based on what they had observed (suggesting dispositional qualities); however, their own future behavior would be a function of situational determinants. In the second study, the observers attributed their best friends' selec- tion of girlfriends and majors to dispositional qualities, but their own selections were again based on specific situational properties. The third study demonstrated observers as perceiving more personality traits in others than themselves. Nisbett et al. C1973) from Brehm C1966) offered the speculation that individuals desire to see themselves as free and, as such, not limited by traits and overriding dispositions. They went on to suggest that individuals employ this causal inference to maintain self-esteem. It closely follows that an observer may per- ceive his behavior as assertive to promote self-enhancement but view the behavior in another individual as possessing aggressive traits. Thus, it is posited in this paper that individual perceptions must be examined in addition to actual situational determinants. 32 Figure 2 presupposes there are situations occurring in the natural world where only interpersonal factors determine assertive behavior; for example, a small boy may be daring himself to jump off the diving board into the swimming pool even though no one is watching. Thus, an intrapersonal element Cself-ideal: I want to be brave) has provided motivation for the boy to jump off the diving board. Simi- larly, there may be situational circumstances where solely interpersonal stimuli function to promote assertive behavior. In the instance of war, charging enemy soldiers may promote a degree of assertiveness not thought possible under more ordinary conditions. Finally, the afore- mentioned natural disaster situation would promote assertiveness regard- less of intra- and inter-personal elements. However, it is assumed that in the majority of situations, assertive behavior is a reflection of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors working in concert with the consequences of the behavior to define and precipitate the assertive behavior. For the moment, a trichotomy of inter- and intra-personal elements and situational elements will be developed to hypothesize their influence on the degree of assertive behavior. Rather than examine all possible perceptions, selected elements and perceptions will be developed. Intrapersonal. Self-concept, comprised of self-identity ("Who am I"), self-ideal ("I really want to be strong"), and self-image 33 C"I am really superior"), typically is the dominant factor of the intrapersonal variables. Given that an individual's self-concept demands that he see himself as worthwhile and equal to others, the probability of assertive behavior being exhibited may be increased. Conversely, the individual who perceives himself as having low personal self-worth has a lowered probability of emitting assertive behaviors. It should be noted that the relationship has been defined as one-way-- i.e., assertive responses are a function of self-concept. In a systems model, the opposite relationship may exist--i.e., emittance of asser- tive responses may enhance self-concept. Many of the current assertive training programs emphasize this reciprocating phenomenon (e.g., Fensterheim, 1972; Hersen et al., 1973; Lazarus, 1966). The therapists are implicitly and often explicitly stating that if the patient learns those new responses, he will feel better about himself and will possess a greater probability of expressing the new responses in the future. The proposed definition of assertive behavior encompasses the self- concept assertive relationship easily. To illustrate, if assertive- behavior is defined as perceived risk-taking, the low self-concept individual sees more situations as risky and has relatively more to lose if he fails. Consequently, he rarely emits assertive behavior. He does not possess the reservoir of self-esteem that the high self-concept individual possesses. 34 Personal history may play a role in the individual's behavioral repertoire in terms of reinforcement scheduling and generic influence of the family. Birth order as the independent variable in a number of studies (e.g., Schachter, 1959) has established the observation that older children have a higher probability for assertive behaviors. Physical condition may function to promote or inhibit assertive behav- ior. For example, the asthmatic child may either be retiring and non- assertive due to his condition or may conversely follow the model of both President Roosevelts and overcompensate for his physical limita- tions, thus enhancing the outgoing assertiveness. Parental images as perceived by the child would influence the emergence of assertive behavior. It is highly probable that children model their parents with respect to specific situations, thus incorpo- rating the degree of assertive behavior deemed appropriate for given situations. Mischel (1968) reported that many of the adult behaviors exhibited presently are childhood patterns derived from modeling. The young boy may model his father's passive behavior toward women and later find it difficult himself to confront his own girlfriend in similar situations. Sex, as a secondary element, may fit equally well into both the intrapersonal and interpersonal domains. By sex, it is specifically meant sex-role and its relation to Self. The female may see herself through cultural and psychological prisms that dictate the degree and 35 kind of assertive behaviors she may emit socially. For example, she might say to herself that if she speaks up for her own self-worth in the presence of males, then she is a dominating individual. In short, it is explicitly assumed by this model that sex-role has a powerful mediating effect on the expression of assertive behavior. Attraction is another element that encompasses both intra- and interpersonal connotations. In this specific section, attraction is considered to be attraction as perceived by Self. It is a psychologi- cal truism that we desire to see ourselves as attractive. That is to say, "If I behave in a specific manner, will I see myself as more attractive?" It is rather difficult if not a moot issue to determine where behavior for self-attraction actually terminates and behaviors to promote attraction to be seen by other initiates. Actual and ideal social norms as perceived by the individual would affect the degree of expressed assertive behavior. For example, there exists one ideal social norm of Christianity which promotes non- assertiveness C'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"); however, the actual social norm felt by the individual as defined by his coach may be "Nice guys finish last." It is predicted that such incon- gruent internal beliefs would decrease the probability of assertive response expression. Fishbein and Ajzen C1975) in their model would assign empirically determined weight to this subjective social norm to ascertain its weight relative to the attitudinal component and thus both 36 predict the individual's degree of intention toward the behavior and ultimate expression. Attitudes, intentions, and beliefs function as emotional road- maps. The individual may express the belief that assertive people are too pushy; consequently, he may inhibit his own assertive behaviors when he might be justified in standing up for his own rights. Using the model proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen C1975), one can speculate about the interaction between intentions, beliefs, attitudes, norms, and assertive behavior. At this juncture, it is relevant to elaborate on the Fishbein and Ajzen model as it will be incorporated into the general testing of the systems model. The reader will recall from figure 1 that a specific behavior is a function of the intentions to perform that behavior. This has been empirically demonstrated by Jaccard and Davidson (1972) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1969a). Similarly, behavioral intention is determined by an "attitudinal" factor and a social or "normative" factor. Each is assigned empirically determined weights through regression techniques. The relationship can be shown symbolically as follows: B I = CAB)WI + CSN)W2 where I = intention to perform the behavior in question A3 = attitude toward performing the behavior SN = subjective norm w-i and w^ = empirically determined weights 37 The first factor, Ag, is a summation of the actor's perceived conse- quences of performing the specific behavior weighted by the actor's evaluation of each of those consequences. This function is summed over the number of beliefs the actor possesses about performing the behavior B. The second factor, SN, defines the influence of the actor's social environment on the behavior. In other words, SN is the actor's perception that people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior. Similar to Ag, the subjective norm is a summation involving: the normative belief Ci.e., the actor's belief that the referent group or individual thinks he should or should not perform behavior B) multiplied by the motivation to comply with each referent's perceived expectations. Summing over the number of relevant referents available yields the subjective norm. The Fishbein and Ajzen model can deal with behavioral intentions and resultant behaviors at any level of specificity. Consequently, it fulfills the criteria of specificity for definition of behaviors suggested by Cahoon (1972) and Mischel (1968), in addition to adapting nicely to this author's proposed systems model. Cahoon and Mischel both reacted against global or generalized conceptualizations of behavior. Constructs such as aggression, assertiveness, or even love are actually a classification of behaviors and, as such, must be delineated to pro- vide adequate definition. In terms of applying the Fishbein and Ajzen 38 model, their model requires explicit statement of specificity of behavior, which is the strategy purported by Cahoon and Mischel. Fishbein and Ajzen's model also examines the perceived consequences of the behavior, which is the sole secondary element in the situational domain of the systems model. Thus, the attitude-behavior model of Fishbein and Ajzen may be a viable procedure for examination of the importance of various secondary elements. It v/ould be erroneous to consider the intrapersonal components of assertive behavior functioning as independent succinct units. These elements act in concert with reciprocating responses to one another to promote or limit the expressed degree of assertive behavior. Interpersonal. As with the intrapersonal elements, the inter- personal elements influence the degree of expression of assertive behavior in an interlocking matrix of dependency. The secondary element of authority for definitional purposes will be concerned with relative status positions between two actors in a dyadic relationship. It will be assumed explicitly that individuals rarely perceive each other on an equal basis. As such, the emittance of assertive behaviors may be a function of perceived status elements. Assertive behavior, as previously defined in this investigation, func- tions to promote equity in the dyadic relationship. The research of Jones and Wortman (1973) has demonstrated that individuals exhibited varying degrees of compliance and/or aggressive behaviors as dependent 39 on their status in a two-person interaction. Berkowitz (1975) reported that individuals perceiving themselves as low status find it difficult, if not impossible, to resist unrealistic demands of a high status person (a major professor), but may be perfectly capable of resisting the same demands from a low status person (an undergraduate). A second major component that relates to assertive behavior may be attraction as perceived by others. That is to say, "If I behave in this situation with some degree of assertiveness, will that increase or decrease my attractiveness with respect to the other person?" The stu- dent hypothesizes that assertiveness in front of his peer group may increase his attractiveness to others, but the same behavior at home might result in chastisement and unattractive messages (e.g., smoking dope and bragging about it). Jennings (1950), in his early work with delinquent girls, clearly documented this phenomenon. If attraction is considered in the context of mutual liking, a slightly different per- spective is available. The question then becomes, "Will an individual modify his assertive behavior directed toward someone he likes, dislikes, or has a mutual liking with that person?" A review of the literature did not reveal any investigations into these considerations. Sex role may be considered as an interpersonal element as well as an intrapersonal element. It is reasonable to presume that indi- viduals not only behave in response to their own sex role perceptions but also reflect behavior characteristic of how others perceive their 40 sex role (Burr, 1973). It is hypothesized that the majority of females have been reinforced to emit nonassertive behaviors in the presence of males (Bulter, 1973). The young coed who is quite capable of providing lucid statements of religious belief in the girls' dorm room suddenly becomes shy and retiring in the presence of males arguing against her beliefs. Similarly, a male who is assertive may be considered forceful. On the other hand, a female engaging in identical behaviors would be considered unattractive by others and by herself (Phelps & Austin, 1975). Other interpersonal elements such as compliance, conformity, and leadership were initially hypothesized to function with assertive behavior. After careful examination, these were dropped from the systems model, as they are so closely integrated with attraction and authority. Further investigation might be directed toward better delineation of these elements and their relation to assertive behavior. Similarly, there exist areas of investigation surrounding the tertiary elements that comprise the secondary elements. For example, there exists a func- tional relationship between the similarity and liking tertiary elements that comprise attraction (e.g., Newcomb, 1961). Situational. The single secondary element in this domain has been termed perceived or anticipated consequences of the behavior. This is in keeping with Cahoon's (1972) conceptualization that consequences may define the specific behavior. The Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) approach 41 also incorporates perceived consequences of the behavior to the indi- vidual as a relevant factor in determining his specific behavioral intentions. Logically, then, this element must be related functionally to assertive behavior. Whatever behavior an individual chooses to exhibit will reflect a cost versus reward posture. The individual might consider assertive behavior, as defined by Alberti and Emmons (1970), rewarding in some interpersonal situations but costly in other situa- tions. Eisler, Hersen, Miller, and Blanchard's study (1975) provided some evidence of this observation. The "high assertive" subjects in their research exhibited more speech disturbances per unit time than the low assertive subjects. The authors hypothesized this unexpected find- ing reflected emotional arousal and suggested that assertive individuals take greater risks in expressing themselves. This is in direct contrast to Wolpe's definition (1973) that assertive béhavior was a non-anxious response. This investigator has included the risk-taking phenomenon in his definition of assertive behavior. It was felt the empirical work of Eisler et al. offered a more accurate reflection of assertive behavior than Wolpe's loose approach. As such, the perceived or anticipated consequences of the behavior would determine whether the behavior is termed assertive. While it would be ideal to devise a laboratory or natural situa- tion to simultaneously test the components of assertive behavior, practical considerations demand a more simplified investigative 42 strategy. Given a breakdown of the aforementioned elements, a logical strategy would entail an examination of only one or two of the elements while holding the other elements constant. Each element may be stated in a proposition for lending itself to analysis. Selection of Elements The ecosystems model developed in the earlier sections posited a variety of elements that may relate to the general construct of assertiveness. It assumed explicitly that some elements carry a greater influence across time and situations than other elements. Attractiveness was predicted to be one such element. As Berkowitz (1975) pointed out, the desire to be perceived as attractive to Self and to others is a basic psychological desire. Aronson and Linder (1965) demonstrated this basic need quite clearly. They essentially found that subjects were more attracted to confederates who were initially critical of the subjects and then were positive toward the subjects. We want others to like us and when they do, we are attracted toward them and feel better about ourselves. The growth of the advertising profession with respect to commercial attraction aids (e.g., toiletries, new cars) provides ample face validity for attrac- tiveness needs. Consequently, social psychologists have examined the variables that comprise attractiveness for many years (Byrne, 1969). The study of attraction variables is not limited to social psychological 43 endeavor. It is generally accepted among therapists that the need to perceive oneself and to be perceived as attractive is emotionally healthy. Consequently, much of the clinical literature on assertive behavior and its elicitation from patients makes the implicit statement that assertiveness is attractive (Eisler et al., 1975). To support this implicit statement that increased assertiveness promotes increased attractiveness, Alberti and Emmons C1970), Phelps and Austin (1975), and others devote a significant portion of their training procedures to just such a message. The clinical literature advocates this preamble to training to insure proper motivation and attitude on the part of the client. This is essentially the communica- tion of a persuasive message in social psychological vernacular. The definition of assertive behavior proposed in this study stated: ". . . the behavior is self-enhancing . . . and the perceived consequences of that behavior are positive" (p. 17). Attractiveness as perceived by Self is defined as essentially self-enhancing. The current clinical reports and qualitative/quantitative assertive behavior assessment instruments depict a recurrent situational theme. For example, McFall and his associates (McFall & Marston, 1970; McFall & Lillesand, 1971; McFall & Twentyman, 1973) published a series of articles emphasizing the efficacy of behavioral rehearsal in asser- tion training. The employment of a behavioral rehearsal procedure entailed the development of training situations. In each study, the 44 majority of situations dealt with a recurrent situational theme. The theme described the individual in a setting confronting some authority figures—e.g., boss, teacher, mother. As mentioned earlier, authority is defined in terms of relative status in a two-person interaction. Eisler et al. C1975) provided some empirical evidence to suggest that differing degrees of assertive behavior expressed by the same person were dependent on the familiarity of the other individual in the situa- tion. In their study, role-playing situations were developed for inpatients that would elicit both negative and positive assertive expressions to familiar and unfamiliar individuals of both sexes. Their study found that males were more negatively and positively assertive toward both familiar and unfamiliar females than toward males. Further, they elicited the finding that males were more positively assertive toward unfamiliar males than familiar males. Unfortunately, Eisler et al. did not examine status variables per se. The familiar male situa- tion depicted the patient-subject's boss but the unfamiliar male situa- tion portrayed a low-status actor (e.g., member of patient's bowling team). It would have been relevant to examine a high status unfamiliar situation in contrast to a low status familiar situation. A common concern among therapists is whether the client will actually perform the suggested behavior as the result of the therapeutic interaction. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have demonstrated that the intention to perform the behavior is highly predictive of actually 45 exhibiting the behavior given certain conditions which are often not satisfied in the therapeutic setting. However, it is of pioneering interest to examine the application of this model to a common behavior often confronted in the therapy situation. The intention to perform the behavior may be assessed empirically through their model. In addi- tion, one component of the new assertive definition entails "the per- ceived consequences of the behavior"; therefore, it would be essential to assess the client's or subject's perception of the behavioral consequences. Objectives of the Study An examination of the literature covering the construct of asser- tiveness has demonstrated little concern with adequately defining this class of behaviors. The clinical reports have relied on global non- operationalized terminology. Little effort has been made to conceptu- alize the construct systematically in relation to various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and situational determinants. The first portion of this study developed and proposed a primi- tive ecosystem approach to define and examine this classification of behaviors. Application of an attitude-behavior model of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) was posited to test the efficacy of the elements inherent in the ecosystems model. 46 The remaining portion of this investigation tested the follow- ing propositions: 1. An individual will perceive behaviors to be attractive dependent on the status position and mutual liking of the Other 2. The perceived intention to perform a specific assertive behavior will be increased when that behavior is viewed as attractive which is a function of status and mutual liking of the Other Earlier emphasis has been placed on the observation that an individual possesses three distinct perceptions—i.e., how do I see myself, how do I see the Other, and how do I see the Other perceiving me, Given this framework, a series of two experiments was performed to encompass these perceptions and to investigate the selected elements. Experiment I considered how an individual (Self) perceives the Other (another individual) after the Other has engaged in an assertive behavior toward a third party with respect to status and mutual liking. In other words, the experiment assessed observer perceptions of assertive behavior. Experiment II considered how an individual (Self) perceives himself if he imagined he had just engaged in an assertive behavior with respect to status and mutual liking in relation to Other--i.e., Self perceives Self. Further, the experiment considered Self's assess- ment of the Other's reactions in a hypothetical situation. 47 This series of experiments possessed both theoretical and clinical relevance. From a theoretical perspective, this total study offered a more operational definition of assertive behavior and an origi- nal conceptual model to examine this class of behaviors. The clinical implications were basically threefold. First, it was relevant to predict the individual's perception of himself after engaging in assertive behavior. It followed that if the results demon- strated a lowering of self-enhancement or attraction, the "cavalier" application of assertion training to clients may be deleterious to their functioning. Second, it was important to assess observer reaction to asser- tive behavior. It has been assumed in the clinical literature that assertiveness is attractive. If the results of Experiment II demon- strated a contrary relationship, then the total issue of assertion training and its presumed benefits must be reexamined. Additionally, observer reactions have a definite influence on the feedback and rein- forcement effects toward the individual's assertive behavior. Thus, negative observer feedback to the client may counter therapeutic interventions. Finally, the individual's perception of how the Other views his assertive behavior provides the therapist with an index of the risk versus cost consequences of that behavior for the individual. If it is indicated, it is eminently sensible for the therapist to assist the 48 client in reducing his anticipated fear or risks when engaging in assertive behavior. CHAPTER 2 METHOD The primary effort of this study was directed toward the exami- nation of the effect of mutual liking, relative status, and type of expression on perceived assertive behavior. Two experiments were con- ducted to consider the three individual subject perceptions of asser- tive behavior. The independent variables were the type of assertive behavioral response, relative status, and mutual liking. Dependent variables included: (1) subject's perception of Self-attraction or Other's attraction via the attractiveness of the behavior, (2) subject's percep- tion of the degree of assertiveness in the portrayed behavior, (3) sub- ject's evaluation of the anticipated consequences associated with that behavior, (4) subject's attitude toward the behavior, (5) subject's sub- jective norm toward the behavior, and (6) subject's perceived intention to perform that behavior at a later time. Subjects The experimental population consisted of eighty undergraduate males from a large southwestern state university. Subjects volunteered to participate in order to receive credit for undergraduate general 49 OIEXAS JECH nBRTTOÍ 50 psychology. Only male subjects were used in order to avoid confound- ing variance due to sex differences. Design The design employed ten males randomly assigned to one of four possible groups--i.e., four experimental groups for each experiment. The between-subjects factors in the design were: (a) relative status of the actors (higher or lower status of the recipient of the assertive behavior) and (b) mutual liking Chigh or low) of the actors in an interaction. The within-subjects factor was the type of assertive response Cpositive or negative). The design was amenable to a 2 x 2 x 2 split plot factorial ANOVA (Kirk, 1968). The four experimental groups consisted of: 1. Two videotaped interactions in which an individual actor was seen asserting himself toward a high status individual when mutual liking was present. One interaction provided a display of positive assertion and the alternate interaction depicted negative assertion. 2. Two videotaped interactions in which an individual actor was seen asserting himself toward a high status individual when mutual liking was absent. One interaction displayed positive assertion and the other interaction portrayed negative assertion. 3. Two videotaped interactions in which an individual actor was seen asserting himself toward a low status individual when mutual liking 51 was present. One interaction depicted positive assertion while the other interaction demonstrated negative assertion. 4. Two videotaped interactions in which an individual actor was seen asserting himself toward a lower status person when mutual liking was absent. One interaction displayed positive assertion, and the second interaction showed negative assertion. Stimulus Materials Stimulus materials consisted of two videotaped presentations of hypothetical situations for each group. Each subject was presented with one situation portraying a "positive assertive response" (i.e., Other-enhancement), and one situation portraying a "negative assertive response" (i.e., prevention of personal rights violation). This was the within-subject variable treatment. The order of situation presenta- tion was random within conditions. Actors were an all male cast consisting of two Ph.D. counseling psychologists and two counseling psychology graduate students. All four actors had experience in assertion training and role-playing. Physically, the actors were rather average looking with no distinguish- ing features. The physical environment for four of the situations was a classroom, while the other four situations were filmed in a professor's office. Prior to videotape presentations, a "voice-over" describing the scene and history of the actors was provided to the subjects, thereby 52 setting up the experimental manipulations. Essentially, the voice-over set the scene with respect to the degree of mutual liking of the rela- tive status between the actors. In total, eight hypothetical situations were filmed—two situations for each experimental condition. The inclusion of both positive and negative assertive response situations was justified by the observation that there are both positive and negative aspects to assertive expression. Alberti and Emmons (1970), Phelps and Austin (1975), and Galassi and Galassi (1974) have pointed out repeatedly that such a distinction exists. Consequently, the nature of the response was considered to be appropriate for manipulation. Development of the descriptive situation and response to be portrayed presented some difficulty. It became necessary to develop a response that came across as assertive from one individual to another individual. Lacking an adequate research definition of assertion, it was decided finally to develop the response from the proposed definition offered by this study. This procedure was justified for two reasons. First, it provided an operating base from which to develop the assertive response. Second, two seven-point item scales asked the subject whether the responses were perceived as assertive. The first scale ranged from nonassertive (+1) to assertive (-»-7). The second scale ranged from assertive (+1) to aggressive (+7). If the assertive response built from the proposed definition was seen as assertive by the subjects, then the definition possessed face validity. 53 A second issue revolved around the selection of situations. It would have been impossible to hold all the situations identical for each condition and still manipulate the selected variables. However, all the situations demanded some degree of commonality for control pur- poses. It was decided that modified situations selected from McFall and Marston (1970) would lend some authenticity to the study for the subjects. The McFall and Marston situations were developed by those authors from an original sample of over 2,000 situations calling for assertive behavior. Their final list consisted of 80 situational items from their Conflict Resolution Inventory, a self-report assessment scale for a global assertion score. From their final list, situations and responses for the study were modified to fit the particular needs of this study. Attraction, as mentioned earlier, may have many connotations. For example, one may speak of physical attraction, self-attraction with respect to Self-Concept, mutual liking, and so forth. The degree of perceived mutual liking (high or low) between the actors was selected as the independent measure of the Attraction element for manipulation purposes. The Authority element of the model was defined as relative status. Two status conditions were available—i.e., high or low. It is important to understand that in the "higher status condition" the sub- ject observed or identified with the primary actor, while that actor 54 interacted with a second actor of higher status. Conversely, in the low status condition, the subject observed or identified with the primary actor who interacted with a second actor of lower status. The status manipulation was defined according to traditional stereotypic criteria--i.e., professors are considered to be of higher status than undergraduates. A short pilot study was conducted to determine under- graduate students' perceptions of status. Thirty undergraduates were required to rate their status in relation to sixteen other persons on a seven-point scale. The results depicted janitors, food-service, high school students, and students with a lower grade point average as having a lower status. Conversely, parents, professors, and older siblings were accepted as higher status individuals. Therefore, the pre- experiment instructions identified each actor according to status. For example, the "professor" actor was considered a higher status person, and the "student" actor with a lower grade point average was considered a low status person. To manipulate the independent variables, the following conditions with "voice overs" were developed. For Condition I in the Observer- Perception study (Experiment I), the situation was set as follows: Actor asserting toward a higher status person with mutual liking present. Positive situation and response: Matt is in Dr. Smith's speech class. Matt just finished an important speech. He delivered the speech with poise. Dr. Smith stated as such. Matt replied, "Thank you, Dr. Smith. I appreciate the comments. But, I couldn't have done it without your help and spending time with me." 55 The voice over for this situation read: "I want you to watch the following interaction. In it, you will see Dr. Smith and Matt interacting in Dr. Smith's speech class. This is a picture of Matt. Matt, an undergraduate, is a student wery much like yourself. Matt just finished an important speech. This is a picture of Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith and Matt have had a long history of liking each other quite a bit. In cther words, they get along well together. I want you to pay particular attention to Matt's last responses to Dr. Smith. Now, please watch the interaction." The negative situation and response for Condition I was set as follows: Matt is in Dr. Smith's office. They are engaged in an impor- tant conversation. Dr. Jones interrupts the conversation to discuss trivial matters. Matt replied: "Excuse me, Dr. Jones. Dr. Smith and I are discussing my grade and I've only got a few minutes left. So I need his attention just a few moments longer." The voice over for this situation read: "I want you to watch the following situation. In it, you will see Matt and Dr. Smith in Dr. Smith's office during office hours. This is a picture of Matt. They are discussing Matt's last test grade. It must be cleared up before the next test. In fact, the next test is scheduled for that very afternoon. Matt only has a few minutes to talk to Dr. Smith. His next class will start in about ten minutes. This is a picture of Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones and Matt have always liked each other. Matt used to be a student of Dr. Jones. I want you to pay special attention to Matt's last responses to Dr. Jones. Now, please watch the interaction. For Condition II in the Observer-Perception study, the situation was set as follows: Actor asserting toward higher status person with mutual liking absent. Positive situation and response: Same as in Condition I. The voice over for this situation read: 56 Same as in Condition I except a substitution is made—i.e., "Matt and Dr. Smith never really got along together. Matt was a student of Dr. Smith's last semester and they just don't care for each other." The negative situation and response for Condition II was set as follows: Same as Condition I. The voice over for this situation read: Same as Condition I, except a substitution is made—i.e., "Matt and Dr. Jones never really got along together. Matt was a student of Dr. Jones's last semester and they just don't care for each other." For Condition III in the Observer-Perception study, the situa- tion was set as follows: Actor asserting toward a lower status person with mutual liking present. Positive situation and response: Matt is the higher status person and Steve is the lower status person. Steve and Matt are in Dr. Smith's speech class, Matt just finished an important speech. He delivered the speech with unusual poise. Steve reported as such to Matt. As Matt sat down, Steve told Matt what a good job he had done. Matt replied, "Thank you, Steve. I appreciate the comments. But, I couldn't have done it without your help and spending the time with me." The voice over for this situation read: "I want you to watch the following situation. In it, you will see Matt and Steve interacting in Dr. Smith's speech class. Matt just finished an important speech. This is a picture of Matt. He is an undergraduate and a student very much like yourself. This is a picture of Steve. Matt and Steve have had a long history of liking each other. In other words, they get along well together. Matt is the better student. He consistently gets the better grades. I want you to pay particu- lar attention to Matt's last responses to Steve. Now, please watch the interaction." 57 TKe negative situation and response for Condition II was set as foUows: Same as in Condition I except a substitution is made—i.e., "Steve interrupts ..." instead of "Dr. Jones interrupts. ..." Matt's response is addressed toward Steve. The voice over for this situation read: Same as in Condition I except a substitution is made—i.e., "Steve and Matt have always liked each other. Steve and Matt were in the same classes all last year. Matt always made the better grades. Matt is the better student." For Condition IV in the Observer-Perception study, the situa- tion was set as follows: Actor asserting toward a lower status person with mutual liking absent. Positive situation and response: Same as in Condition III. The voice over for this situation read: Same as in Condition III except substitution is made—i.e., "Steve and Matt have never really liked each other. They don't get along too well." The negative situation and response for Condition IV was set as follows Same as in Condition III. The voice over for this situation read: Same as in Condition III except substitution is made—i.e., "Matt and Steve have never really gotten along together. Matt and Steve were classmates all last year, and they just don't care for each other." For Experiment II, the pronoun "you" was simply substituted in eyery place where "Matt" appeared in each condition in Experiment I. 58 Dependent Measures Two forms composed of seven-point item evaluative semantic differential scales were given to the subjects following the video presentation. Each form had been constructed to measure a different perspective with respect to the dependent measures. The first form simply asked the subject to evaluate the assertive responses as an observer for Experiment I. The form in Experiment II required the sub- ject to imagine that he was in that situation. He was requested to evaluate the perceived assertive response as if he had provided it himself. The subject also was asked to evaluate on a second question- naire how he thought the Other actor perceived the responses as if he, the subject, had just provided the assertive response. Table 2 depicts a sample questionnaire assessing the subject's perception of an assertive behavior in a positive situation of Experi- ment I. Items I and II measured the degree of assertiveness for the behavior viewed by the subject. Item III assessed the attractiveness of the behavior perceived by the subject. The potency of the observed behavior was evaluated by Items IV, V, VI, and VII. The anticipated consequences of the actor's assertive behaviors were measured on Items VIII through X. Items XI, XII, and XIII measured the subject's evalua- tion of those consequences. In accordance with the Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) model, the subject's attitude toward the assertive behavior was the summed score of the rating for Item VIII multiplied by the rating 59 for Item XI plus the rating for Item IX multiplied by the rating for Item XII plus Item X multiplied by Item XIII. The subjective norm value was the sum of the rating for Item XIV multiplied by the rating of Item XV. Finally, Item XVI was used to assess the perceived inten- tion to perform the behavior. The questionnaire designed for Experiment II followed a similar format. Appendices A and B contain sample questionnaires for Experiments I and II, respectively. Procedure Subjects for each experiment were run in groups of ten. Tapes were shown over one large twenty-four-inch Sony monitor. Each situa- tion was five minutes in length. A subject was assigned randomly to one of four different condi- tions for Experiment I. Similarly, a subject was assigned randomly to one of the four different conditions for Experiment II. The same sub- jects were used for both the Self-Perception and the Other-Perception portions. This was accomplished by having the subjects fill out two questionnaires for each tape situation. Following the presentation of the taped situations and comple- tion of the forms, the subjects were allowed to leave the experiment. The experimenter's name and phone number were provided to each subject upon completion of the experiment for debriefing purposes. 60 TABLE 2 SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE ASSESSING SUBJECT'S PERCEPTION OF A RESPONSE WHEN VIEWED IN A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION You have just witnessed an interaction between Matt and Dr. Smith. Please evaluate Matt's last responses on the following form. Some of the items may be difficult to understand and rate, but just do your best. Place an "X" on the scale box Cl-7) that best describes your feeling for EACH item. For example: The sun will come up in the east tomorrow. extremely probable LX_ extremely improbable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please evaluate Matt's responses toward Dr. Smith. Matt's responses were: I. nonassertive I assertive II. assertive I aggressive III. appealing I unappealing IV. weak j strong V. hard soft VI. lenient LU I severe VII. masculine , feminine Considering Matt's responses, please evaluate the foUowing possible consequences of Matt's responses. It is difficult, but do your best, Be sure to rate each item. VIII. Dr. Smith felt good about himself extremely improbable extremely probable L J \ L IX. Matt felt good about himself extremely improbablei i i i i i i i extremely probable 61 TABLE 2—Continued X. Dr. Smith liked Matt more extremely probable [ | | i | i i j extremely improbable This may be even more difficult, but we want you to consider how Matt might evaluate the consequences of the reactions to his responses. XI. Matt sees Dr. Smith feeling good about himself as: positive II I I 1 I 1 1 negative XII. Matt sees feeling good about himself as: negative i i i i i i i i positive XIII. Matt sees Dr. Smith liking Matt more as: positive II 1 1 I I 1 I negative These last three items are the most difficult. Rate each item to your best ability. XIV. Probably most people who are important to Matt feel: he should not | i i i i i i i he should respond like this toward Dr. Smith. XV. In general Matt wants , I I | I I | I Matt doesn't want to do what people who are important to him want him to do. XVI. In the future if Matt were in this situation, he would give a similar response extremely probable i i i i i i i i extremely improbable CHAPTER 3 RESULTS The data from the two experiments were analyzed first by a three-way analysis of variance with two levels of relative status (actor with high status, actor with low status), two levels of mutual liking (high or low), and two levels of assertive expression (positive or negative). The generalizability of the Fishbein and Ajzen model for predicting behavioral intention by subjects exposed to an assertive behavior was tested by a multiple regression of attitude and subjective norm on behavioral intention for each of the perceptual situations, respectively. In addition, the best predictors of behavior attractive- ness were selected through regression analyses. Experiment I Experiment I consisted of the observer's perceptions--that is, the subjects witnessed two situations via videotape in which a positive expression and a negative expression were demonstrated. Table 3 provides the means for each condition and each dependent variable in Experiment I. Appendix C contains the analysis of variance tables for Experiment I. 62 63 co 00 0 co ^ CM ^ • 0 • • • cn CVJ CVJ • 3 • • • • « • 4-> •^ ro co LT) LO LO «;í- fO +J CO cn 0 00 CM 0 LO co . • c % • • . • Ul •r— 0 co CM r— CM CM ,_ C\J CVJ o J>^ _J 0 Od + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 +1 +i •r— Cl. CM •-; 00 _l • • • co cn • ^ ^ ^ LO ^ ^ LO ro 3 CíL Mu t C7Í 2. 4 Ul 1. 7 :1. 4 2. 4 2. 1 2. 3 1. 2 co • • • • • • • -j to "^ co LO LO 10 to St a sz to co 0 ^ , «J3 0 cn . . • • . . . . •r— 00 0 co co OJ • • • • • « • CXL LO *:t • í- LO LO to «o Ul CL X Ul CTi UJ C 4-> c fO CL 0 S- 0 ^ s- Ul •r- CU •r- CO <*- 0 o 4-> CO 4-> tO 0 •r— S- to s- cu -a > co 0 co cn •a c 0s CÛ c 2: s- > sz 4-> 3 0 > •a •!- cu co ro > Cû o. 4-> > c •r- C •r- CO 0 •r- CO 3 10 0 E •1- 0 C 0 ro s- x: •1- 0 •1- 0 0 c S- U —' 4-> 4-> 4-> 0 4-> Cû J3 2: S- »-. c 4-> 3 the same general measurement format of bipolar scales, two scales were employed to assess perceived assertion. The first measure of perceived assertion was on a nonassertive to assertive scale from one through seven, with one being nonassertive and seven being assertive. The second measure was an assertive to aggressive scale from one through seven, with one being assertive and seven being aggressive. On the nonassertive-assertive scale, the type of expression had a significant effect on perceived assertion, such that a negative expression (M = 5.8 - 1.50) was viewed as more assertive than the positive expression (M = 4.7 + 1.94), £ (1,36) = 8.31, £ <.01. The analysis of a first order interaction (mutual liking X type of expression) by a test of simple main effects demonstrated that the effect of expression type was significant only under the high level of mutual liking (£<.01). Negative expression was viewed as more assertive than positive expres- sion under the high level of mutual liking. The assertive-aggressive scale indicated relative status had a significant effect on the perceived assertion from the observer's view- point, £ (1,36) = 9.81, £<.01. The direction of the effect was that if an actor asserted toward an actor of higher status (M = 4.5 ± 2.1), 65 then the behavior was seen as more aggressive by the subjects than toward a lower status actor (M = 3.1 ± 1.7). There was also a signifi- cant main effect for mutual liking, £ (1,36) = 3.97, £< .03. The effect of this variable was such that the behavior was seen as assertive when the two actors had a high degree of mutual liking (M = 3.4 ± 1.5), but when the degree of mutual liking CM = 4.2 ± 2.0) was low, the behavior was seen as more aggressive. The attractiveness of the behavior for the subjects was assessed on a seven-point unattractive to attractive scale, with one designated as unattractive and seven as attractive. In this instance, relative status had a significant main effect on the perceived attractiveness of the behavior such that low relative status increased the perceived attractiveness for the observer, £ Cl>36) = 5.20, £<.02. In practical terms, this effect meant when an actor asserted himself toward another person of higher status (M = 4.20 ± 2.0), the behavior was viewed as less attractive by the observer; however, the same behavior was viewed more attractive when directed toward a person of lower status (M = 5.0 ± 2.1). There was also a significant main effect for type of expression, £ (1,36) = 4.69, £<.05, such that positive expression (M = 5.1 ± 2.1) was seen as more attractive than negative expression (M = 4.1 + 2.1). The anticipated or perceived consequences of the assertive behavior was scored on a -3 to -«-3 scale. The scale asked the question. 66 "Would the actor feel better about himself after exhibiting this behavior?" The scale ranged from -3 for extremely improbable to ••-3 for extremely probable. There were no significant main effects on this dependent variable, but the mutual liking X type of expression (£<.01) and the mutual liking X status interactions (£< .05) were significant. The results of a simple main effects procedure indicated that posi- tive expression had a favorable effect on anticipated consequences when there was a high degree of mutual liking present between the two actors but no effect under the low degree of mutual liking. Similarly, the second interaction breakdown via simple main effects indicated that the degree of mutual liking between actors affected the perception of anticipated consequences when the behavior was directed tov/ard a high status actor, but not the low status actor. In this instance, the observer-subject rated the most favorable behavior consequences would occur when there was high mutual liking between actors and the primary actor was asserting toward an actor of higher status. The fourth major dependent variable was the subject's perceived attitude toward the behavior. The attitude measure, taken from the Fishbein and Ajzen model, was derived by multiplying the score on each of three belief statement scales (i.e., Dr. Smith felt good about him- self; Matt felt good about himself; Dr. Smith liked Matt more) by the score on the corresponding evaluation of those beliefs (i.e., Matt sees Dr. Smith feeling good about himself as . . .; Matt sees feeling good 67 about himself as . , .; Matt sees Dr. Smith liking Matt more as . . .) and then summing these products. The belief statements were measured on -3 to +3 semantic differential scales with -3 being negative and -»-3 as positive. The ANOVA results revealed no significant main effects although a first order interaction of mutual liking X type of expression was only significant under the high mutual liking condition in increas- ing a favorable attitude toward the behavior (£<.01) but not under the low mutual liking condition. A positive expression under the high mutual liking condition determined the increased favorable attitude. Superficially, it would seem logical that the attitude toward the behavior measure and the attractiveness of the behavior measure would obtain similar results--that is, a favorable attitude would suggest attractiveness. This was not true. Those independent variables which had a significant main effect on attractiveness (i.e., relative status and type of expression) did not affect the attitude. Further, the examination of a correlation matrix of all experimental variables did not reveal a significant correlation between attitude and attrac- tiveness. Apparently, the two variables are measuring different per- ceptual aspects of assertive behavior. The subjective norm or the subject's expectations of significant others about the behavior was a dependent measure obtained from multi- plying the score on one belief statement (i.e., probably most people who are important to Matt feel he should [should not] respond like this 68 toward Dr. Smith} by the score on the corresponding evaluation of that belief. Each scale was a -3 to •i-3 semantic differential scale. For the belief scale +3 meant the subject felt the actor's significant others felt he should respond the way he did. Conversely, -3 meant the subject did not feel the actor should respond the way he did with respect to significant others. The evaluation scale assessed the impor- tance of the belief--that is, seeing the actor as wanting to please his significant others (-^-3) or, conversely, a -3 score meant he did not see the actor as wanting to please his significant others. Hence, for the product, a higher score indicated a subjective norm favoring the observed behavior. The results showed a significant main effect of mutual liking on the subjective norm, £ Cl>36) = 6.09, £<.01. This meant that when a high degree of mutual liking was present between the actors, the sub- ject saw the actor as having behaved more in accordance with the expectations of his significant others (M = 7.1 ± 2.5). Conversely, with low mutual liking between actors (M = 5.6 ± 2.0), the subject saw the actor as having behaved less in accordance with expectations of his significant others (M = 5.6 t 2.2). Finally, behavioral intention, as a dependent measure, assessed the subject's perception of the actor's intention to perform in the future the behavior exhibited in the videotape. This measure was taken on a -3 to +3 semantic differential scale where -3 indicated it 69 was extremely improbable that the actor would give such a response and a ^^3 depicted a high probability that the actor would behave simi- larly in the future. Relative status had a significant main effect on behavioral intention such that assertion toward a high status person CM = 6.1 í .8) increased behavioral intention, £ (1,36) = 4.98, £< .02, more than when a person vias assertive toward a lower status person (M = 5.3 + 1.5). Behavioral intention was selected as the dependent variable primarily to test the generalizability of the Fishbein and Ajzen model for prediction of assertive behavior by the subjects. Table 4 shows the regression results for the Fishbein and Ajzen model. In the condi- tion of viewing a positive expression, the multiple correlation between the two variables of the Fishbein and Ajzen model and the observer's perception that the actor intended to behave in a similar manner was R = .38 (£<.01). Examination of beta weights in table 4 indicated that attitudinal considerations were the primary determinants of behavioral intentions for the observer-perception. A similar prediction of behav- ioral intention was shown for the negative expression (R = .47, £<.01), and the attitudinal component was again the primary determinant in the observer's estimation of behavioral intention. Regression procedures were employed to determine the best pre- dictors of behavioral attractiveness. The best predictors of attraction were perceived assertion (r =-.41) and anticipated consequences (r=.59) 70 c •K * * * •X - •r- fO ^ r— CO LO h>. «JD •!-> r- 00 r^ «X) CT) CM CD r- QJ co ^ «* co co 4-> C * - •¥ -K cû - •r- S- CO _-l M- 0 Z LU M- •r— o > I—I I—I 0 ro 0 JC \- I— <-—^ C X predictive equation for each experiment. Perceived assertion in this instance was measured on this scale of assertion to aggression. Since the significant gorrelation was in the negative direction, it indicated the attractiveness of the behavior increased as the perceived assertion increased and perceived aggression decreased. This finding held for the observer-perception for both positive and negative expressions. In the negative expression situation only, the anticipated consequences were directly correlated with attractiveness. This meant as the observer perceived favorable anticipated consequences for the behavior, then the perceived attractiveness was also increased. Experiment II The questionnaire employed in Experiment II allowed for the assessment of -che subject's self-perception (i.e., how would I view my behavior if I had given that response) and the Other-perception (i.e., how do I see the Other person viewing my behavior if I had given that response). The measurement format was similar to that used in Experi- ment I with the actors' names changed at the appropriate places and different pre-questionnaire instructions. ANOVA and regression pro- cedures were performed on each perception. Each perception will be examined separately to facilitate explanation of the results. 72 OJ co o 00 cc: r>. «J3 r^ 00 «JD CO LO LO •1— co tn h- s- LU XJ) -i-> D) S- rO al cu CL. fO X I 4-> Table 6 gives the means for all conditions for self-perception, and appendix D shows the analysis of variance tables for Experiment II. For the determination of perceived assertion from a self- perception perspective, the two semantic differential scales of non- assertive-assertive and assertive-aggressive were employed in the self- perception portion. The type of assertive expression had a significant main effect on self-perceived assertion such that subjects viewed their imagined behavior as more assertive when the expression was negative, £ (1,36) = 6.54, £<.01. The negative expression group mean (M = 5.7 +1.5) was significantly different from the positive group mean (M = 4.6 í 1.8). The subjects were then asked to rate their own imagined behavior on the assertive-aggressive scale. The results showed relative status had a significant main effect on self-perceived assertion such that the behavior was defined more assertive when directed toward a lower status person (M = 3.4 í 1.6) but was defined as more aggressive when directed toward a higher status person (M = 4.7 ± 1.4), £ (1,36) = 13.12, £<.01. The type of expression also had a significant main effect on perceived assertion, £ (1,36) = 42.68, £<.01. In this instance, the negative expression (M = 5.2 í 4.2) was viewed as significantly more aggressive than the positive expression (M = 2.8 + 1.5). 74 co cr> LO co C7) • • LO • LO • fO LO 4-> co CO C7) lO C cr> LO 00 o co OJ O +1 +1 + 1 +1 Q- OJ +i +1 o cr> CTí «o O o • az OJ LO LO fO LO 3 +-> cr> co LO LU CO • co 1— OJ co ,_ co CO CU + +1 +1 +1 +i +1 3 2: + OJ O +-> OJ o r^ r^ cr> fO LO 00 cn CO CO co CO LiJ •t- to OJ CM • CM • OJ ZIZ o +i +1 +i co CL +1 +1 +1 az CO cr> +1 LU o • LO LO o. LO • co X co U- Q- c 4-> c ro LU o S- o »-^ S- Q •1— co 4-> co o LJ_ i- co s- O cu fO co cn cu •f— o 2 -a c o CÛ c < cu 1 S- > .c 4-> 3 o > •a •r— > fO > cu 4-> Cû Q. CU •o > 4J > c •r— c •r— CO O •f— to 3 rO o ^ •r- cu x: O c o fO S- x: •f— o •1— cu 'r-> o O c S- ^*' S- V ^ ••-> +-> +J o 4-> CÛ J3 •2Z s- t—1 c 4-> 3 The attractiveness of the behavior was a significant function of the type of expression, £ (1,36) = 10.28, £<.01. If the subjects imagined they had exhibited the behaviors themselves, the positive expression (M = 4.9 i 2.3) was judged more attractive than the negative type of assertive expression CM = 3.6 i 2.5). The perceived or anticipated consequences of the behavior as judged by the subject was assessed on a semantic differential scale of -3 to +3 (extremely improbable to extremely probable), which read, "I felt better about myself after my response." The ANOVA results did not indicate any significant main effects on this dependent variable. Similarly, there were no significant main effects for either the sub- jective norm or the attitude toward the behavior. There was a first order interaction between the level of mutual liking and the type of expression for the attitude toward the behavior. Analysis of this interaction via simple main effects revealed that negative expression 76 Aggressive 7.0 X = higher status 6.0 person 5.0 c «poW 4-> S- c status •r- rO cu 2.0 Assertive 1.0 Positive Negative Expression Expression Fig. 3. Illustration of the interaction between relative status and type of expression on self-perceived assertive behavior. 77 resulted in a more favorable attitude when there was low mutual liking and positive expression resulted in a more favorable attitude under the high level of mutual liking (£<.01). There were no significant main effects on the final remaining dependent variable of behavioral intention. Given there were two types of behavioral expression (positive and negative), the regression analysis gave the best predictor vari- ables that predicted the attractiveness of the behavior (see table 5). When the expression was positive assertion, the subject's intention to behave in this positive manner directly correlated (r = .31) with the attractiveness of the behavior (£<.01). In the situation where the expression was negative, no variable reached significance level in the regression equation. The Fishbein and Ajzen model predicted the subject's intention to behave assertively. Table 4 shows the regression results for the Fishbein and Ajzen model. For both the positive and negative assertive behaviors, the results indicated subjective norms were the primary con- siderations determining the subject's behavioral intentions. This is in direct contrast to the findings in Experiment I (Observer Perception) where the attitudinal components were the more important considerations in behavioral intentions. Therefore, when the subject functions as an observer of the assertive behavior, his attitudes dictate his inten- tions. In contrast, if the subject imagines that he exhibited the 78 behaviors, the expectations of his significant others and his motivation to comply with those expectations dictate Kis intentions to perform an assertive behavior. Other Perception The second portion of Experiment II consisted of the "Other Perception" dimension. This dimension attempted to assess the subject's perception after he had considered the Other's view of the behavior. In practical terms, this dimension asked the question: "How does he (the Other) view my behavior?" The dependent variables were measured in the same manner prescribed in Experiment I and the first portion of Experiment II. Table 7 shows the means for each condition and each dependent variable. Appendix E shows the ANOVA results in tabular form. On the nonassertive-assertive scale, the type of expression had a significant main effect such that the presence of the negative type expression (M = 5.9 + 1.5) was seen as more assertive than the positive type expression (M = 4.9 + 1.9), £ (1,36) = 6.67, £<.01. When the behaviors were rated on the assertion-aggression scale, the type of expression had a significant main effect on perceived assertion, £ (1,36) = 54.30, £< .01. The effect was such that the subject perceived the Other judging the behavior as aggressive (M = 5.9 ± 1.3) rather than assertive (M = 3.7 ± 1.0) when the negative assertion was present. 79 co CX) 0 cr> co 00 • • • • • LO LO • OJ •— r^ fO £<.01. Analysis of the significant mutual liking X relative status interaction on perceived assertion indicated the subject saw the Other viewing the behavior as more assertive when the Other had a higher status and both individuals liked each other (£<.05), but less asser- tive when the Other was of lower status and a high level of mutual lik- ing was present. Again, attractiveness was assessed on a seven-point scale with one as unattractive and seven as attractive. The subject was required to rate how attractive he felt the Other saw the subject's imagined behavior. The ANOVA results showed that the perceived level of mutual liking between the subject and the Other had a significant main effect on the perceived attractiveness of the behavior, £ (1,36) = 13.94 £<.01. The direction of this finding was such that in the condition of high mutual liking (M = 4.6 ± 2.4) the behavior was deemed more attractive than with a low level of mutual liking (M = 3.3 * 2.9) between participants. The type of expression also had a significant main effect on the behavior's attractiveness, F (1,36) = 41.22, £<.01). In this 81 instance, if the subject saw himself emitting a positive assertive response (M = 5.0 í 2.7), he felt the Other viewed the behavior more attractive than if he had given a negative assertive response (M = 2.7 ± 2.6). Anticipated consequences, based on a -3 to +3 scale, asked the question, "(Actor's name) liked me more after my response?" with -3 being negative and +3 positive. In other words, the subject was attempting to assess the Other's perception of the behavior if the sub- ject had provided the behavior. The results provided two significant main effects. First, the level of mutual liking had a significant main effect on this dependent variable, £ (1,36) = 38.81, £<.01, such that the subject perceived more favorable consequences when there was a high degree of mutual liking between the two individuals (M = 4.2 ± 1.0) than when there was a low level of mutual liking present (M = 2.5 ± 1.3). Similarly, the examination of the significant main effect on anticipated consequences created by the type of expression, £ (1,36) = 47.34, £<.01, showed that the subject saw more favorable consequences when positive expression (M = 4.3 ± 1.3) was expressed in contrast to nega- tive expressions of assertion (M = 2.3 ± 1.0). There were no significant effects for the attitude toward the behavior. The subjective norm variable, as in Experiment I and Experiment 11's self-perception portion, was simply the subject's perceived 82 expectations of his significant others about the behavior and his motivation to please the significant others or comply with their expec- tations. Like the self-perception portion of Experiment II, there were no significant effects on subjective norm at the a priori £<.05 level. However, there was a trend toward relative status affecting the sub- jectiye norm at £< .06. It simply meant that the subject rated a greater probability of behaving in accordance with the expectations of his significant others when in the presence of a higher status person (M = 7.2 ± 1.8). Conversely, there was a lesser probability of behav- ing in accordance with significant others' expectations when in the presence of a lower status person (M = 6.1 ± 2.9). No significant effects were exhibited in the ANOVA results for the behavioral intention variable. From the regression analysis, two predictor variables emerged to correlate significantly with attractiveness under the positive assertion condition (see table 5). The first variable was the per- ceived assertion variable based on the nonassertive-assertive scale (r = .31, £<.05). The second predictor was the variable defined as anticipated consequences. This variable was measured on a -3 (extremely improbable) to a +3 (extremely probable) scale that asked, "The Other liked me more after my response?" The regression equation showed anticipated consequences was directly correlated to attractiveness (r = .37, £<.05). This meant as the subject viewed the anticipated 83 consequences as increasingly favorable, the attractiveness of that behavior was increased. When the exhibited behavior was negative assertion, the regres- sion equation indicated the anticipated consequences was correlated directly with attractiveness (r = .50, £<.05). Unexpectedly, a sig- nificant negative correlation between the subject's view of the Other's attitude toward the behavior and the behavior's attractiveness to the Other emerged (r = -.22). The direction of this correlation was sur- prising, as an increasingly favorable attitude v/ould normally be associated with increasing behavior attractiveness. The Fishbein and Ajzen model predicted the intention to behave assertively by the subjects under both types of behavioral expressions Cpositive expression, R = .42; negative expression, R = .39; £<.05). Examination of the beta weights in table 4 indicated that the subjec- tive norms were the primary determinants of behavioral intentions. In other words, the subjects' probability of exhibiting assertive behaviors (positive and/or negative) was based on fulfilling the expectations of relevant others. These were in contrast to the Observer-Perception results in which the attitudinal components were the primary determi- nants of behavioral intentions. CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Overview of Results The assertion model as proposed by this study contains numerous elements interacting to define and affect perceived assertive behavior. Additionally, the model allows for three separate perceptual dimensions in the model. The results of this investigation supported the inclusion of some of the elements and further verified the interaction of those elements. The results may be capsulized in general terms. Relative Status Observer-perception Relative status--i.e., the perceived difference in personal status between two individuals--had a strong effect on various dependent variables under each perceptual dimension. Under the observer percep- tion dimension, the results showed that subjects defined the videotaped behavior as more assertive when a higher status person asserted himself toward a lower status person. Conversely, an individual asserting him- self toward a higher status person was seen as behaving more aggres- sively by the observer subjects. The videotaped behavior was further 84 85 seen as attractive when a higher status person asserted toward a lower status but unattractive when a lower status person asserted toward a higher status person. In terms of behavioral intention, the observers rated that the probability of performing the specific assertive behav- ior as exhibited by the actor was increased when a low status person asserted himself toward a higher status person. In contrast, the observers indicated that a higher status person was less likely to be assertive in this specific instance toward a lower status person. Self-perception In the self-perception dimension, the subject imagined that he was in the videotaped situation and exhibited the specified behavior. Given this perspective, if the subject saw himself interacting with another individual of higher status (e.g., professor), he defined the behavior as more aggressive. If the subject saw himself interacting with an individual of lower status (e.g., another student with a lower grade point average), he saw the same behavior as more assertive. Relative status had no other significant effects on the remaining dependent variables. Other-perception In this second part of Experiment II, the subject rated the behavior on the basis of how he perceived the Other person viewing his behavior—i.e., the subject's imagined behavior. Relative status had 86 the same effect on perceived assertion in this perceptual dimension as the other two perceptual dimensions. If the subject imagined him- self interacting with a higher status Other, the subject saw the Other as defining the behavior as more aggressive. Similarly, if the subject saw himself asserting toward a lower status Other, the subject imagined the Other seeing the behavior as more aggressive. In conclusion, relative status defined the interaction between two individuals, such that a person asserting toward a higher status person was seen as more aggressive from all three perceptual dimensions than a person asserting toward a lower status person. Further, the behavior was seen as less attractive by observers when an individual asserted toward a higher status individual. These effects are especially interesting in that the intention to behave measure showed the subjects predicted a greater intention to behave by the videotaped actor toward a higher status person even though the behavior was considered more aggressive and less attractive than toward a lower status person. The Fishbein and Ajzen model results indicated the observer-subjects based their perceptions of behavioral intention more on their attitude components than on their subjective norm components. Consequently, it may have seemed "safer"--i.e., less personal investment--for them to predict the actor would intend to behave this way in the future. In Experiment II, where there was increased personal involvement, the subjective norms components 87 were more relevant and the intention to behave variable failed to demonstrate significance. Mutual Likinq Observer-perception The degree of mutual liking between the actors as seen by the observer affected the perceiver's definition of the videotaped behavior. The observer saw the behavior as more assertive when there was a high degree of mutual liking between the individuals; however, the behavior was defined as more aggressive when there was a low level of mutual liking between the actors. The type of expression had a significant effect on the observer's estimation of the anticipated consequences but only when a high level of mutual liking was present. Similarly, the observer saw the principal actor as having a more favorable attitude toward the behavior when positive assertion was expressed and a high level of mutual liking was present. Self-perception Unexpectedly, the level of mutual liking did not demonstrate a significant effect on any of the dependent variables. Mutual liking did interact with the type of expression variable to produce an effect on the subject's perceived attitude toward the behavior. In this instance, negative expression resulted in a more favorable attitude when there 88 was low mutual liking present than positive expression under low mutual liking, and the positive expression of assertiveness resulted in a more favorable attitude under the high level of mutual liking than negative expression when a high level of mutual liking was present. This interaction suggested the subject saw it permissible to be negatively assertive when little mutual liking was present; how- ever, with friends or with a high level of mutual liking present; the more appropriate assertive behavior was considered to be the positive type. Other-perception The levels of mutual liking did have significant effects under this perceptual dimenson. Unlike the Observer-Perception results where perceived assertion was a function of mutual liking, the subject did not see the Other's perception as affecting the definition of assertion. The subject did see the Other's perception of his behavior as more attractive when both parties liked each other. In contrast, if the sub- ject saw the Other as not liking him, the subject perceived the Other viewing the behavior as unattractive. The results also showed that if the Other, according to the subject, liked him, there was a high probability of favorable behavioral consequences. Less favorable consequences were expected when the sub- ject saw himself and the Other having a low level of mutual liking. In 89 total, mutual liking influenced the definition of assertiveness only from an observer's perception (i.e., increasing levels of mutual liking indicated increasing attraction). However, the level of mutual liking affected the attractiveness of the behavior, the attitude toward the behavior, and the estimation of favorable consequences. From a specu- lative sense, an increasing level of mutual liking seemed to focus on more favorable or positive dimensions associated with assertive behav- ior. Status, on the other hand, appeared to emphasize the definitional dimensions of assertive behavior. Type of Expression Observer-perception The type of assertive expression, either positive or negative, had a definite effect on this perceptual dimension and the other dimensions. The observer-subjects saw negative expressions more assertive than the positive expressions; however, they perceived the positive assertive behaviors as more attractive than the negative asser- tive behaviors. No other significant main effects were found for this variable in this dimension. Self-perception In this perceptual dimension, the subject saw himself much in the same way that the observer viewed the same behavior. The subject perceived positive expressions as less assertive but more attractive than negative expressions. 90 Other-perception The type of expression also influenced how the subject viewed the Other perceiving his behavior. Again, this variable affected per- ceived assertion in much the same way as the first two perceptual dimensions. The subject saw the Other viewing positive expressions as less assertive than negative expressions. Additionally, positive expressions were seen as more attractive than negative expressions by the Other, according to the subject. Unlike the other two dimensions, in the Other perception dimension, the type of expression significantly affected the anticipated consequences dependent variable. The effect was such that the subject saw the Other perceiving favorable behavioral consequences with posi- tive assertion. From the subject's own self-perception and the observer's perception, the type of expression did not affect outcome or consequences, but how the subject saw the Other viewing the behavior did affect the perceived consequences. It could be concluded, then, that the subject's assessment of consequences depends on his perception of the Other individual's reactions. Implicitly, this indicates the subject felt he had little control over consequences but must be dependent on the Other's perception. In total, the type of expression appeared to define the degree of assertiveness and its attractiveness rather than the clinical assumption that all assertive behavior is attractive. On the contrary. 91 negative expression was considered less attractive and more aggressive in the Other-Perception portion of Experiment II. The general issue of attractiveness and its relation to assertive behavior dictates a closer examination. Fishbein and Ajzen Model In terms of regression results, the attractiveness of the behavior was directly correlated with perceived assertion (r = .41, .31, .31_). As the perceived assertion increased, the attractiveness of the behavior increased. Further, in the Observer-Perception and the Other-Perception dimensions, the probability of favorable anticipated consequences increased the attractiveness of the behavior. Under the Self-Perception dimension when positive assertion was present, according to the regression analysis, the subject imagined himself as more likely to perform the behavior--i.e., behavioral intention. Originally, the Fishbein and Ajzen behavior model was employed in this investigation to examine the importance of various elements in the ecosystem assertion model, especially the perceived or antici- pated behavioral consequences. The Fishbein and Ajzen model further allowed for the examination of another dependent variable: intention to perform the behavior. Results indicated behavioral intention was affected by the relative status variable only from the observer percep- tion dimension. In this instance, the subject as an observer 92 predicted the actor would behave assertively toward a higher status figure more readily than he would toward a lower status figure. When the behavioral intention variable was placed into regression equations, the attitude component was the primary determinant in predicting the subject's behavioral intention. In Experiment II, the independent variables did not signifi- cantly affect the behavioral intention; however, the regression analysis of the Fishbein and Ajzen model predicted the subject's intention to behave assertively. Further, the intention was based on the subjec- tive norm component--i.e., expectations of significant others--rather than the attitudinal component. The phenomenon reported by Jones and Nisbett (1971) could account for the observer versus participant attitudinal and subjective norm difference. They reported, "The more the observer is set to empathize with the actor, the more similar their attributional perspectives will be" (p. 9). In the more participant style of Experiment II, the subjects emphathized more with the actor, according to experimental preinstructions, and thus were guided more by their subjective norms and impressions. This is not unrealistic, as Jones and Nisbett (1971) and Regan and Totten (1974) have pointed out. Aspects of a situation are phenomenologically more salient for participants (e.g., the subjective norm), but the characteristics of the participants and their behaviors are more salient for observers (e.g., attitude toward the behavior). 93 In other words, both the participants and observers differ in the way they process the very same information. Storms (1973), using videotape, reversed the visual perspectives of subjects such that one time they were actors in a situation, then viewed themselves in that situation, but this time functioning as observers. His results indi- cated the subjects would make perceptual shifts and provide differing attributions for their own behaviors. When the subjects were actors, they attributed their behaviors to more situational and less disposi- tional aspects. Conversely, when they saw the videotape of the situa- tion and functioned as observers, they provided causal attributions for their own behaviors that were relatively less situational and more dispositional. This same process occurred for the subjects in this investigation. Recently, Songer-Nocks (1976) reported a carefully controlled study in which she found that certain situational factors altered the nature of the Fishbein and Ajzen model significantly. She concluded that different prediction models were required by different situational conditions, thus limiting the generality of the Fishbein and Ajzen model. The association between the attitude component and behavioral intention, she reported, appears to be dependent on prior experience with the behavior. The low predictive values in this study may be due, then, to lack of prior experiences with assertive behavior in the specific videotaped situations or similar situations. Her study 94 included "external variables"—i.e., variables not explicitly included in the Fishbein and Ajzen model (sex, feedback, experience)—that greatly reduced the model's predictive ability. In some cases, the model alone accounted for only 30 percent of the variance. This is a comparable figure to the significant multiple correlations found in this present study. Implications of Results for the Ecosystems Model It can be reported with confidence that varying levels of the model's elements affect the defining of assertive behavior by the sub- jects. Logically, it follows that assertive behavior can only be defined from a situational, intrapersonal, and interpersonal context. Recently, the pioneer group of assertion training practitioners (Alberti, Emmons, Fodor, Galassi, Garnett, Jakubowski, & Wolfe, 1976) outlined a comprehensive definition of assertive behavior to avoid the confusion now present in the literature. They recognized that any ade- quate definition must consider several dimensions: "A. Intent: behavior classified as assertive is not intended by its author to be hurtful of others. "B. Behavior: behavior classified as assertive would be evaluated by an 'objective observer' as itself honest, direct, expressive, and non-destructive of others. "C. Effects: behavior classified as assertive has the effect upon the receiver of a direct and non- destructive message, by which a 'reasonable person' would not be hurt. "D. Socio-Cultural Context: behavior classified as assertive is appropriate to the environment and culture 95 in which it is exhibited, and may not be considered 'assertive' in a different socio-cultural environment." (Assert, p. 2, 1976) The definition and model of this study which was independently derived does, in fact, include the above dimensions; however, important exceptions are noted. The Alberti group considers "intent" to be a relevant dimension in defining assertive behavior. This investigation, following the posture of Cahoon (1972), eliminated this inferential state. The results reported in this investigation demonstrated that subjects could define a behavior as assertive consistently without con- sidering the intent of the actors. The socio-cultural context mentioned by Alberti et al. is analogous to the intrapersonal domain outlined in the assertion model. The "effects" dimension fits nicely into the feedback interaction principle that underlies any ecosystem model. Finally, the "behavior" dimension of the Alberti group and their "objective observer" is comparable to the observer perception paradigm employed in Experiment I. The results of Experiment I suggested that the subject need not be a totally objective observer to recognize and define the same videotape behavior as assertive. While the observer does not have to be a totally objective observer to simply define assertive behavior per se, the various per- ceptions held by observers and Self and Other Perception subjects will alter the definition of the behavior according to external variables. For example, observers may consider the behavior to be unattractive 96 and aggressive when status variables are involved (e.g., Observer- Perception results). Similarly, Alberti et al. consider the receiver of assertive behavior (the equivalent of the Other in the present experiment) to be a "reasonable person" and would not be hurt by assertive behavior. The results of Experiment II indicated the Other may see a behavior as assertive but still view the behavior as unattrac- tive and/or lacking in favorable consequences when taken in the context of low mutual liking. In short, there are wery real status, liking, and type of expression variables that affect the defining of assertive behavior. It is felt the Alberti et al. position ignores these external variables. The recognition that assertive behavior is a composite of factors is consistent with the results of Holmes and Horan (1976). In their study of anger induction in assertion training, they found the low interrelationships among the assertion measures suggest that the "trait" assertiveness of the earlier literature may well be situation specific. In their study, Holmes and Horan compared two treatment strategies and a placebo group for assertion training. After treatment, they employed four different unobtrusive behavioral measures for post- testing. The general lack of strong relationships between the asser- tive behavior measures supported the position that assertion cannot be characterized in terms of global traits. Their findings support the 97 position stated in this investigation, that assertion is situationally specific. Gosta Andersson (1976), of the University of Gothenburg, recently completed a factor analytic study of assertiveness in which his results rejected the typological classification definition in favor of a dimensional definition composed of "group factors" (his terms). Andersson, after testing 380 subjects on an assertion test of his own construction, pointed to two factors that comprise assertion: assertiveness inhibition and assertiveness expression. These two fac- tors were then broken down into group subfactors. Assertiveness inhibi- tion was composed of four group factors: "1. Assertiveness inhibition in terms of an avoidance of the expression of opinions and feelings "2. Assertiveness inhibition in terms of an avoidance of the expression of feelings and opinions perhaps abased on guilt proneness "3. Assertiveness inhibition in terms of an avoidance of the expression of refusal behavior in specific buying situations "4. Assertiveness inhibition in terms of an avoidance of the expression of positive feelings and opinions" (P^ 2) Conversely, assertiveness expression was composed of the following four group factors: "1. Assertiveness expression in terms of an expression of feelings, opinions, and refusal behavior "2. Assertiveness expression in terms of an expression of refusal behavior "3. Assertiveness expression in terms of an expression of feelings in relation to one's family "4. Assertiveness expression in terms of an expression of opinions" (p. 2) 98 Andersson finally concluded by reporting that nonassertion closely parallels a condition of helplessness. It should be noted that Andersson's work, while extensive, continued to focus on nonoperational terminology. Future empirical investigations should take into account the varying dimensions of assertive behavior, as outlined in the operation- alized definition. Andersson (1976) then developed a modeling approach for asser- tive behavior, based on his factor analytic results, similar to the integrative type employed in this investigation. Andersson's model was formulated from Hill's (1968) efforts on evaluative reinforcement, Lewinshohn's (1974) behavioristic model of depressive disorders, Seligman's (1974) study on learned helplessness, Akiskal and McKinney's (1973) unifying theory of depression, and Andersson's (1976) own factor study of assertiveness deficiency. Andersson's mddel differs from this study's model, in that his model places more emphasis on personal needs, predispositions, and feelings. That is to say, the current ecosystem model is more operationalized. Secondly, Andersson enployed an induc- tive approach in contrast to the deductive approach of the ecosystems model. The major point is that both models have attempted to integrate previously existing sources into a multidimensional matrix. Authority, defined as relative status, came through consis- tently as a major element affecting the perception of assertive behav- ior. Additionally, the Authority element influenced the perceived 99 attractiveness of the behavior. This is consistent with the work of Jones and Wortman (1973), who reported that individual behavior and its attributions will vary in accordance with the relative status in two- person interactions. It was suggested to this investigator that factor analyzing a commonly used assertion measure may produce factors that validate the hypothesized elements in the assertion model. Consequently, an adjunct study was performed on the Galassi and Galassi College Self-Expression Scale (app. F). The adjunct factor analysis study provided evidence for the importance of Authority as a model element. Factor III (paren- tal), Favor V (servile), and Factor IX (inferiority) all related to authority or relative status. The three factors total to explain 24.2 percent of the total variance. Further investigation would be required to ascertain the specific effects of different types of status— e.g., parental, teacher, employer. Suffice it to say that the assertion trainer must take into account the Authority element in his program. The majority of situa- tions employed in assertion programs entail client interaction with authority figures (e.g., parents, professors). The trainer first must emphasize the distinction between assertion and aggression in such a way that the client's perception would be altered to redefine the behavior toward an authority figure as assertive, not aggressive. As long as the behavior is defined as aggressive by the client, then 100 assertion training probably will be less successful. Aggressive behaviors are associated typically with negative consequences for most people; therefore, a nonassertive client, defining assertive behavior as aggressive, would be less likely to risk engaging in assertive behavior. However, in Experiment II (Other-Perception), if the behavior is considered aggressive but in the context of high mutual liking, the subjects rated increased favorable consequences for that behavior. As such, if a condition of high mutual liking is promoted, perhaps the effect of perceived aggressive behavior or consequences can be diminished. The other two dimensions' results showed that even though higher relative status of the recipient affected the definition of the behavior--i.e., more aggressive--the status variable did not directly influence the subject's perception of anticipated consequences. In the assertion ecosystem, Attraction--i.e., mutual liking-- was an important element tested by this investigation. Earlier in this chapter and in the preceding chapter, it was shown that Attraction affected the majority of dependent variables. A recent study by Hartsook, 01ch, and de Wolf (1976) indirectly pointed to the effect of mutual liking on assertive behavior. They were examining the personal- ity characteristics of women's assertiveness training group partici- pants. Their results, based on quantitative measures and clinical impressions, found that women who were highly concerned with approval by others limited their assertive expressions. Women with a lesser need 101 for approval exhibited significantly more assertive responses. It could be argued that approval is related to Attraction--i.e., mutual liking--such that two individuals who approve of each other probably have a high mutual liking level. In the current study, high mutual liking facilitated perceived assertion. Generalizing from the current results and the Hartsook et al. results, it can be speculated that assertion behavior can occur more readily between friends, but if one individual is uncertain about the degree of friendship, the probability of assertive behavior expression is limited. In addition, the results of the Other-Perception portion of Experiment II showed increased favorable consequences were a.ssociated with positive assertion and with a high level of mutual liking. The coeds in one Hartsook et al. study might have been focusing on the anticipated consequences element of assertion; therefore, negative assertion and/or a lower level of mutual liking was too threatening to promote effective assertion. In the adjunct factor study (app. F), Factor I accounted for 25.5 percent of the total variance. It was composed of items that related to friendship interactions (confrontations and expressions of appreciation between peers) and thus was named "friendship demands." A major dimension in friendship is the degree of mutual liking or attraction toward each other. Therefore, even from a factor analytic perspective, elements of attraction as perceived by Self and attraction as perceived by Others toward Self are extremely significant in their interaction with assertive behavior. 102 Although the Attraction element, defined as mutual liking, was employed in this investigation as an independent variable, another dimension in the concept of attraction was used as a dependent variable (i.e., the attractiveness of the behavior). It has been implicitly assumed in much of the clinical literature that assertive behavior is attractive behavior. The results from these two experiments supported this assumption. Assertive behavior, as defined by the subjects in both experiments, was correlated significantly in the positive direc- tion with attractiveness of the behavior. It should be pointed out that the clinical literature has held with assuming it is the negative asser- tive behavior that is attractive; however, the current results hold the positive assertiveness is the more attractive behavior. As such, the positive expression may be considered to receive the primary focus of training. Further, perceived behavioral intention also correlated in the positive direction with attraction from the Self-Perception dimen- sion. In other words, the perceived intention to perform a specific assertive behavior was increased when that behavior was viev/ed as attractive which, in turn, is a function of the Authority element (rela- tive status) and the Attraction element (level of mutual liking). This supports the first and the second research propositions outlined in chapter 1 of this investigation. The attractiveness of the behavior was increased in most of the conditions when associated with positive assertion according to the 103 regression analysis. Given these results, the practicing clinician could accelerate the process of assertion training by first allowing the client to practice positive assertive behaviors and have some assurance the client would probably practice those responses. Further, the results suggested that in a therapeutic situation, the client's behavioral probability of response and success would likely be enhanced if given in a condition of high mutual liking between partici- pants and, more specifically, if he uses a modeling procedure directed toward a high status person. The type of assertive response (positive or negative) consis- tently affected the dependent measures, especially the perceived attractiveness of the behavior. Positive expression was associated with assertion and attractiveness. These results confirm this writer's position that training in positive assertion should be an integral part of client training. It is an early Adlerian concept that positive behaviors beget positive behaviors, thus enhancing the client's ability to emit honest expressions of approval, appreciation, and cooperative behaviors without undue anxiety. These expressions would create a warmer, more secure environment for emotional growth of the client. A future research area might concern itself with the relationship between anxiety and expression of positive versus negative assertive behaviors. Given Wolpe's position (1973) that undue anxiety decreases the emittance of assertive behaviors, the expression of positive assertion, if 104 associated with less personal anxiety, would increase learning of assertive behaviors. The clinical literature points out that the anticipated conse- quences of a behavior will certainly influence the degrees of expres- sion of that behavior (e.g., Wolpe, 1973; Lange & Jakubowski, 1976). Consequently, perceived or anticipated consequences had been selected as one of the elementsin the assertion ecosystem model. The antici- pated consequences element was employed as a dependent variable. Other model elements, employed as independent variables, had significant effects on anticipated consequences. For example, with the Attraction element (mutual liking), if the subject saw the Other liking him, the subject perceived a higher probability of favorable behavioral conse- quences. Similarly, if the subject saw the Other perceiving the asser- tion as positive, then the anticipated consequences were seen as favorable. The observation that some elements could have significant effects on other elements in the model demonstrated the reciprocal principle or feedback principle that underlies all ecosystem models. The Fishbein and Ajzen model results with their low multiple correlation figures suggested exogenous variables affected the behav- ioral intention measure. It is possible there could have been an interaction of the manipulated factors and the model parameters. If this is correct, then these interaction variables probably reduced the effective prediction power of the Fishbein and Ajzen model. Regardless 105 of the limitations associated with the Fishbein and Ajzen model, the results provide support for an important clinical implication. A key component in any assertion training program is motivating the clients to attempt the new behaviors. It was shown that the subjects expressed greater behavioral intention with positive assertive expres- sions. Consequently, it might prove more beneficial to begin the pro- grams with positive expression--e.g., appreciation to a friend, compli- mentary behaviors, honest expression of approval. This approach would involve the client more readily with less fear of negative consequences from others. Future Studies Upon reflection, this current set of studies may be modified and expanded in such a way to better explore the ecosystems model. The studies employed videotaped situations to allow greater experimenter control over the independent variables. Even with this control, the results suggested that exogenous variables may have influenced the Fishbein and Ajzen model results; therefore, it would be reasonable to speculate that exogenous variables may have affected the ecosystems model, as well. Once the ecosystems model has undergone further theo- retical modification, the use of in vivo situations could be employed to reduce the reactivity of the measures and experimenter demands. At the current stage of development of the ecosystems model, "life-like" qual- ity of in vivo situations had to be sacrificed for greater control. 106 Measurement did present some problem. The complexity of the task for the subjects may have produced some confusion. Further consideration must be given to simplifying the measurement process. The complexity of the task for the subjects may have accounted for the lack of results for anticipated consequences and behavioral intentions and the weak results indicating only moderate predictability of the Fishbein and Ajzen model. Before the Fishbein and Ajzen model is employed for future assertiveness study, the elements in the model must be redefined. This is true especially for the subjective norm component. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have addressed themselves to this wery issue in their major work. Theoretically, it is still somewhat uncertain as to what the subjective norm actually measures. The results associated with the ecosystems model elements suggested an examination of the Sex-Role element. It will be recalled that the subject population was limited to males viewing males on video- tape. These males defined the taped behaviors as assertive or aggres- sive, dependent on the particular experimental conditions. It would be relevant to consider the perceptions of females in the same tasks under the same conditions. As Austin and Phelps (1976) pointed out, a behavior may be considered assertive for a male, but considered aggressive for a female. Consequently, a future study might include male subjects viewing female actors interacting with male actors. Simi- larly, the study might consider the effects of females viewing male actors. 107 The results demonstrated that a behavior may be defined as assertive in one context but more aggressive in another context if only status and/or mutual liking is manipulated. A relevant clinical issue would consider the effect of assertion training on the subject's (client's) perceptional definition of the behavior. Successful train- ing would alter the client's definition of the behavior to such a degree that he would consider the behavior as assertive tov/ard a higher status person and, as such, perform the behavior more readily. Con- versely, if the subject still considered the behavior as aggressive, the probability of behavior expression would likely be less. Further, the subject's (client's) perception of the behavioral consequences of an assertive behavior needs further examination. The results of the current investigation provided some indication of the subject's projection of anticipated consequences, but many questions remain surrounding this particular element. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The data from these experiments provided clinical implications of both a theoretical and practical nature for assertion training pro- grams and the examination of assertive behavior. From a theoretical framework, the newly developed definition of assertive behavior does incorporate the comprehensive dimensions necessary to operationalize the assertion construct. Each dimension in the definition can be operationalized and experimentally manipulated to examine the resultant effects on the other dimensions. Conceptually, the definition followed the current behavioral tradition (e.g., Cahoon, 1972). The latest literature on assertion indicates this defi- nitional approach to be a sound one (e.g., Alberti et al., 1976). One of the basic purposes of this investigation has been to develop a conceptual model for assertive behavior that would incorporate intrapersonal, interpersonal, and situational elements. While ecolo- gists have employed a similar approach for years, psychologists are only recently applying the integrated ecological method. Generalizations from any study should be made cautiously, especially from an experimental setting to a therapeutic milieu. The 108 109 findings of these experiments supported several clinical assumptions. First, attractiveness was correlated significantly with perceived assertive behavior. Positive assertive behavior was seen as more attractive and perceived as having more favorable consequences than negative assertive behavior. As the behavior became more attractive, there was a concurrent increase in intention to perform the behavior according to the regression analysis. Therefore, assertion training programs may consider first establishing a repertoire of positive assertive behaviors to be learned by the client. The learning process would be accelerated for these individuals. In terms of authority, assertive behavior was defined as occurring when a higher status person directed his behavior toward a low status person. The converse was seen as aggressive behavior. Subjects were prone to fulfill the expectations of significant others when they were confronted with a higher status person. The client's perception of assertive behavior and aggressive behavior must be altered to allow the client to assert himself toward the authority figure more readily. The attraction between two participants (mutual liking) influ- enced the perception of assertive behavior in such a way to state assertion between friends was safe; assertion between nonfriends was aggression and less safe. The assertion training program must then be 110 constructed to alleviate the anticipated anxiety associated with asserting toward a nonfriend. The extensive study of assertive behavior may or may not con- tinue. Perhaps with the increased population and crowding, assertive behavior, as an individual survival strategy, wiU continue to evolve as an investigative area and remain a dominant aspect of the litera- ture. The longevity of assertive behavior research will be a function of increased operationalization of terminology and tangible results. REFERENCES Adler, A. The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. Edited by H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher. New York: Basic Books, 1956. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. The prediction of behavioral intentions in a choice situation. Journal of Experimental Socia! Psychology, 1969, £, 400-416. Akiskal, H. S., & McKinney, S. Depressive disorders: Towards a united hypothesis. Science, 1973, 182, 20-29. Alberti, R. E.; Emmons, M. L.; Fodor, I. G.; Galassi, J.; Galassi, M.D.; Garnett, L.; Jakubowski, P.; & Wolfe, J. L. Definition of assertion behavior. Assert, June 1975, 8^. Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. Your perfect right: A guide to assertive behavior (Ist ed.). San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Impact, 1970. Andersson, G. Towards a unifying theory of assertiveness. Assert, October 1976, 10. Aronson, R. E., & Linder, D. Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, U 156-171. Berkowitz, L. Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 1954, 7_, 509-519. Berkowitz, L. A survey of social psychology. Hinsdale, 111.: Dryden Press, 1975. Booker, A. L. The effect of dominance status on aggression in kinder- garten aged children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1972. Brehm, J. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press, 1966. 111 112 Bulter, P. E. Assertive traininq: teachinq women not to discriminate against themselves. 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 082-103). Byrne, D. Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4^. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Cahoon, D. D. A behavioristic analysis of aggression. Psychology Record, 1972, 22^, 463-476. Cautela, J. R. A behavior therapy approach to pervasive anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, £, 99-109. Edwards, N. B. Case conference: assertive training in a case of a homosexual pedophilia. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1972, 3^, 55-63. Eisler, R. M.; Miller, P. M.; & Hersen, M. Components of assertive behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 24, 295-299. Eisler, R. M.; Hersen, M.; Miller, P. M.; & Blanchard, E. B. Situa- tional determinants of assertive behaviors. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43^, 330-340. Fensterheim, H. Assertive methods and marital problems. In R. D. Rubin, H. Fensterheim, J. D. Henderson, & L. P. Ullman (Eds.), Advances in behavior therapy: Proceedings of the fourth conference of the Åssociation for Advancement of Behavior Therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1972a. Fensterheim, H. Behavior therapy: assertive training in groups. In C. J. Sayer & H. S. Kaplan (Eds.), Progress in group and family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1972b. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975. Galassi, J. P., & Galassi, M. D. Validity of a measure of assertive- ness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1974, 2^, 248-250. Galassi, J. P.; Delo, J. S.; Galassi, M. D.; & Bastien, S. The College Self-Expression Scale: a measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 165-171. 113 Gay, M. L.; Hollandsworth, J. G., Jr.; & Galassi, J. P. An assertive- ness inventory for adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22, 340-344. Haley, J. Changing families. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. \^ Hanson, R., & Bencomo, A. Adapting a structured assertive training program to a group of chronic psychiatric patients. News- letter for Research in Psychology, November 1972, ]K, 4-6. Hartsook, J. E.; Olch, D. R.; & de Wolf, V. A. Personality character- istics of women's assertiveness training group participants. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 22, 322-326. Hersen, M.; Eisler, R. M.; & Miller, P. M. Effects of practice, instructions, and modeling on components of assertive behavior. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1973, ]_]_, 443-451. Hill, W. F. Sources of evaluative reinforcement. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 132-146. Holmes, D. P., & Horan, J. J. Anger induction in assertion training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 22» 108-111. Jennings, H. H. Leadership in isolation. New York: Longsman Green, 1950. Jaccard, J. J., & Davidson, A. R. Toward an understanding of family planning behaviors: an initial investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, !_, 228-235. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1971. Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. Ingratiation: an attributional approach. Hinsdale, 111.: Dryden Press, 1975. Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1968. Lange, A. J., & Jakubowski, P. Responsible assertive behavior. ,/ Champaign, 111.: Research Press, 1976. Lazarus, A. A. Behavior therapy and beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. 114 Lazarus, A. A. Behavior rehearsal vs. non-directive therapy vs. advice in effecting behavior change. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, 4^, 209-212. Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. The unresponsive bystander: why doesn't he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Lawlis, G. F., & Chatfield, D. Multivariate approaches for the behavioral sciences: a brief text. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech Press, 1974. Lewinsohn, P. M. A behavioral approach to depression. In R. J. Friedman and M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression. New York: Winston & Sons, 1974. Longin, H. E., & Rooney, W. M. Assertion training as a programmatic intervention for hospitalized mental patients. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associa- tion, 1973, S_, 451-462. Macpherson, E. L. R. Selective operant conditioning and deconditioning of assertive modes of behavior. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1972, 2» 99-102. Margalef, R. On certain unifying principles in ecology. In A. S. Boughey (Ed.), Contemporary readings in ecology. Belmont, Calif.: Dickenson Publishing Co., 1959. Martorano, R. D. Effects of assertive and nonassertive training on alcohol consumption, mood, and socialization in the chronic alcoholic. Proceedinqs of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1973, 8_, 395-396. McFall, R. M., & Marston, A. R. An experimental investigation of behavior rehearsal in assertive training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 75, 295-303. McFall, R. M., & Lillesand, D. B. Behavioral rehearsal with modeling and coaching in assertion training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 7£, 313-323. McFall, R. M., & Twentyman, C. T. Four experiments on the relative contributions of rehearsal, modeling, and coaching to asser- tion training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81_> 199-218. 115 Meador, B. D., & Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current psychotherapies. Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock Publishing, 1973. Milgram, S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholoqy. 1963, 6£, 371-378. Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968. Newcomb, T. M. The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, 1961. Nisbett, R. E.; Caputo, C; Legant, P.; & Marecek, J. Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 2£, 154-164. Nydegger, R. V. The elimination of hallucinatory and delusional behavior by verbal conditioning and assertive training: a case study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1972, 2> 225-227. Palmer, R. D. Desensitization of the fear of expressing one's own inhibited aggression: bioenergetic assertive techniques for behavior therapists. Newsletter for Research in Psychology, Feb. 1972, 14-, 36-38. Patterson, G.; Littman, R.; & Bricker, W. Assertive behavior in children: a step toward a therapy for aggression. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1967, 32» 1-43. Percell, L. P. The effect of assertive training on modifying cognitive and affective variables. Newsletter for Research in Psychology, 1973, 15, 4. (a) Percell, L. P. The correlations among assertiveness and some cogni- tive and affective variables. Newsletter for Research in Psychology, 1973, 15, 3. (b) Perkins, D. G. The effectiveness of three procedures for increasing assertiveness in low assertive college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, 1972. Phelps, S., & Austin, N. The assertive woman. Fredericksburg, Va.: Book Crafters, 1975. 116 Rathus, S. A. Instigation of assertive behavior through videotape- mediated assertive models and directed practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1972. Rathus, S. A. Instigation of assertive behavior through videotape- mediated assertive models and directed practice. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1973, ]]_, 57-65. (a) Rathus, S. A. A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1973, £, 257-264. (b) Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of Personality and Socia! Psychology, 1975, 22., 850-856. Rehm, L. P., & Marston, A. R. Reduction of social anxiety through modification of self-reinforcement: an instigation therapy technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 22.. Salter, A. Conditioned reflex therapy: the direct approach to the personality. New York: Capricorn Books, 1949. Schachter, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959. Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned helplessness. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression. New York: Winston & Sons, 1974. Shulman, B. H. Contributions to individual psychology. Chicago, 111.: Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago, 1973. Songer-Nocks, E. Situational factors affecting the weighting of predictor components in the Fishbein model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 56-69. Storms, M. D. Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actors' and observers' points of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27_, 165-175. Tiler, H. A. Socially responsible behavior as a function of observer responsibility and victim feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 95-100. 117 Weinman, B.; Gelbert, P.; Wallace, M.; & Post, M. Inducing assertive behavior in chronic schizophrenics: a comparison of socio- environmental, desensitization, and relaxation therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 22.» 245-252. Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A. A. Behavior therapy techniques: a guide to the treatment of neuroses. New York: Pergamon Press, 1966. Wolpe, J. The practice of behavior therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press, 1973. Yates, A. J. Behavior therapy. New York: Wiley, 1970. APPENDIX A. Sample Questionnaire for Observer-Perception Dimension of Experi ment I B. Sample Questionnaire for Self-Perception Dimension and Other- Perception Dimension of Experiment II C. Analysis of Variance Tables for Observer-Perception D. Analysis of Variance Tables for Self-Perception E. Analysis of Variance Tables for Other-Perception F. Factor Analysis of the College Self-Expression Scale 118 119 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OBSERVER-PERCEPTION DIMENSION FOR EXPERIMENT I You have just witnessed an interaction between Matt and Dr. Smith. Please evaluate Matt's last responses on the following form. Some of the items may be difficult to understand and rate, but just do your best. Place an "X" on the scale box (1-7) that best describes your feeling for EACH item. For example: The sun will come up in the east tomorrow. extremely probable i X i i i , , , , extremely improbable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please evaluate Matt's responses toward Dr. Smith. Matt's responses were: I. nonassertive i 1 1 1 i i 1 i assertive II. assertive 1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 aggressive III. appealing i i i 1 1 1 1 i unappealing IV. weak 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 strong V. hard i 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 soft VI. lenient 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i severe VII. masculine i 1 i i 1 . \.... l. \ feminine Considering Matt's responses, please evaluate the following possible consequences of Matt's responses. It is difficult, but do your best, Be sure to rate each item. VIII. Dr. Smith felt good about himself extremely probable | i i j extremely improbable IX. Matt felt good about himself extremely improbable, [ i i i i i i extremely probable 120 X. Dr. Smith liked Matt more extremely probable i i i i i i i l extremely improbable 12 3 4 5 6 7 This may be even more difficult, but we want you to consider how Matt might evaluate the consequences of the reactions to his responses. XI. Matt sees Dr. Smith feeling good about himself as: positive I I III I 1 I negative XII. Matt sees feeling good about himself as: negative i i i i i I l i positive XIII. Matt sees Dr. Smith liking Matt more as: positive I I 111 1 1 I negative These last three items are the most difficult. Rate each item to your best ability. XIV. Probably most people who are important to Matt feel: he should not , i i 1 i I i I he should respond like this toward XV. In general Matt wants i i i i i I I iMatt doesn't want to do what people who are important to him want him to do. XVI. In the future, if Matt were in this situation, he would give a similar response: extremely probable i i i i i i i i extremely improbable 121 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SELF-PERCEPTION DIMENSION AND OTHER-PERCEPTION DIMENSION OF EXPERIMENT II Imagine that you were in this situation instead of Matt. Further imagine that you had given a response very similar to Matt's. In other words, imagine that Matt's response was your response. With this in mind, please fill out the following form. Place an "X" on the scale box (1-7) that best describes your feeling for EACH item. For example: The sun will come up in the east tomorrow. extremely improbable extremely probable , X , , J—I—\- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please evaluate your "responses" toward Dr. Smith: I would see my responses as: I. nonassertive assertive II. assertive J L aggressive III. appealing unappealing IV. weak strong V. hard -1—l- soft VI. lenient severe VII. masculine feminine Dr. Smith probably saw my response as: assertive VIII. nonassertive J—l IX. assertive J L aggressive X. appealing J L unappealing XI. weak J L strong XII. hard J L soft 122 XIII. lenient | l i i I l I i severe XIV. masculine i l i i l i i i feminine Considering your responses, please evaluate the following possible con- sequences of your responses. Remember the "responses" are those in the film that you imagine you just gave. It is difficult, but do your best. Be sure to rate EACH item. XV. Dr. Smith felt better about himself after my responses . extremely probable i l l i i i | i extremely improbable XVI. I felt better about myself after my responses extremely improbablei i i i i i i i extremely probable XVII. Dr. Smith liked me more after my responses extremely probable , , , , , , | | extremely improbable This may be even more difficult, but we want you to evaluate the conse- quences of your responses on the following items. XVIII. I see Dr. Smith feeling good about himself as positive negative ^ I—\—I—i 1—I—I 1 XIX. I see feeling good about myself as negative | i i i i i \ I positive XX. I see Dr. Smith liking me more as positive ,..,,,,, "^^ative XXI. Dr. Smith sees feeling good about himself as negative | i i i i i I I positive 123 XXII. Dr. Smlth sees liking me more as positive I I I I I I I I negative XXIII. Most people who are important to me would feel that I should not i I I i i i i i I should respond to Dr. Smith as I just did XXIV. In general I want 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I do not want to please people who are important to me. XXV. In the future if I were in this situation, I would give a similar response extremely probable , i i i i i i i extremely improbable 124 APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES FOR OBSERVER-PERCEPTION TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), A^ÍD TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ASSERTION-AGGRESSION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OBSERVER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source ss DF MS F A 37.813 1 37.813 9.81** C 1.513 1 1.513 0.39 AC 3.313 1 3.313 0.81 ERROR 138.6 36 3.85 B 15.313 1 15.313 3.97* AB 10.515 1 10.513 2.73 BC 7.813 1 7.813 2.02 ABC 2.813 1 2.813 0.73 ERROR 138.6 36 3.85 Total 345.778 79 4.37 *p < .05 • **p < .01 • 125 TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH NONASSERTION-ASSERTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OBSERVER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 5.512 1 5.512 1.812 C 25.313 1 25.313 8.318** AC 5.512 1 5.512 1.812 ERROR 109.548 36 3.043 B 2.813 1 2.813 0.924 AB 21.013 1 21.013 6.905** BC 15.313 1 15.313 5.032* ABC 0.612 1 0.612 0.201 ERROR 109.584 36 3.044 Total 295.188 79 3.737 *P < .05. **p < .01. 126 TABLE 10 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ATTRACTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OBSERVER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 20.00 1 20.00 5.20* C 18.05 1 18.05 4.69* AC 3.20 1 3.20 0.83 ERROR 36 B 2.45 1 2.45 0.63 AB 12.80 1 12.80 3.32 BC 0.45 1 0.45 0.117 ABC 1.80 1 1.80 ERROR 36 Total 335.55 79 4.24 *p< .05. 127 TABLE 11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OBSERVER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 9.80 1 9.80 3.15 C 2.45 1 2.45 0.78 AC 2.45 1 2.45 0.78 ERROR 36 B 7.20 1 7.20 2.31 AB 20.00 1 20.00 6.44 BC 42.05 1 42.05 13.54 ABC 1.25 1 1.25 0.40 ERROR 36 Total 308.80 79 3.90 128 TABLE 12 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BEHAVIOR AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OBSERVER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 1.25 1 1.25 0.24 C 16.20 1 16.20 3.12 AC 1.80 1 1.80 0.34 ERROR 36 B 1.25 1 1.25 1.25 AB 2.45 1 2.45 0.49 BC 20.00 1 20.00 3.86 ABC .20 1 .20 0.03 ERROR 36 Total 415.95 79 5.26 129 TABLE 13 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH SUBJECTIVE NORM AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OBSERVER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS LJL . A 22.05 1 22.05 3.19 C 11.25 1 11.25 1.63 AC 1 ERROR 36 B 42.05 1 42.05 6.09* AB 1.25 1 1.25 0.18 BC 4.05 1 4.05 0.58 ABC 11.25 1 11.25 1.63 ERROR 36 Total 606.750 79 7.68 *p<.05. 130 TABLE 14 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH BEHAVIORAL INTENTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OBSERVER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 12.80 1 12.80 4.98* C 1.25 1 1.25 .48 AC 0.05 1 0.00 0.05 ERROR 36 B 3.20 1 3.20 1.24 AB 6.05 1 6.05 2.35 BC 1.80 1 1.80 .70 ABC 0.05 1 0.05 0.01 ERROR 36 Total 209.95 79 2.65 *p<.05. 131 APPENDIX D: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES FOR SELF-PERCEPTION TABLE 15 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), .AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ASSERTION-AGGRESSION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE SELF-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 12.62 1 12.62 3.59* C 36.14 1 36.14 10.28** AC 1.81 1 1.81 0.51 ERROR 49.02 36 1.36 B 12.52 1 12.52 3.57 AB 0.45 1 0.45 0.12 BC 0.20 1 0.20 0.05 ABC 0.45 1 0.45 0.12 ERROR 126.25 36 3.50 Total 315.48 79 3.99 '^P < .05 « **p < .01 • 132 TABLE 16 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH NONASSERTION-ASSERTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE SELF-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 11.74 1 11.74 3.72 C 20.65 1 20.65 6.54** AC 2.90 1 2.90 .92 ERROR 113.61 36 3.15 B 2.30 1 2.30 0.73 AB .29 1 .29 0.92 BC 4.41 1 4.41 1-40 ABC 0.12 1 0.12 0.04 ERROR 115.20 36 3.20 Total 227.33 79 **p <.01. 133 TABLE 17 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ATTRACTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE SELF-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 12.62 1 12.62 3.59 C 36.14 1 36.14 10.28** AC 1.81 1 1.81 0.51 ERROR 126.55 36 3.51 B 12.52 1 12.52 3.57 AB 0.45 1 0.45 0.12 BC 0.20 1 0.20 0.20 ABC 0.45 1 0.45 0.12 ERROR 135.00 36 3.75 Total 315.48 79 3.99 **p <.01. 134 TABLE 18 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE SELF-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 3.85 1 3.85 1.09 C 0.03 1 0.03 0.00 AC 8.78 1 8.78 2.49 ERROR 127.15 36 3.53 B 3.64 1 3.64 1.03 AB 4.15 1 4.15 1.18 BC 5.90 1 5.90 1.67 ABC 0.06 1 0.06 0.01 ERROR 126.61 36 3.51 Total 279.95 79 3.54 135 TABLE 19 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ATTITUDE TOWARD THE BEHAVIOR AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE SELF-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 1.43 1 1.43 0.23 C 13.83 1 13.83 2.27 AC 3.07 1 3.07 0.50 ERROR 219.33 36 6.09 B 1.59 1 1.59 0.26 AB 3.14 1 3.14 0.51 BC 79.53 1 79.53 13.09** ABC 0.77 1 0.77 0.12 ERROR 220.15 36 6.11 Total 539.48 79 6.82 **p<.01. 136 TABLE 20 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH SUBJECTIVE NORM AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE SELF-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 13.35 1 13.35 2.08 C 2.21 1 2.21 0.34 AC 0.47 1 0.47 0.07 ERROR 231.05 36 6.41 B 9.64 1 9.64 1.50 AB 20.36 1 20.36 3.18 BC 0.38 1 0.38 0.06 ABC 1.36 1 1.36 0.21 ERROR 231.35 36 6.42 Total 508.20 79 6.43 137 TABLE 21 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH BEHAVIORAL INTENTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE SELF-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 1.31 1 1.31 0.52 C 3.09 1 3.09. 0.83 AC 4,26 1 4.26 1.14 ERROR 90.69 36 2.51 B 1.42 1 1.42 0.43 AB 0.01 1 0.01 0.00 BC 0.63 1 0.63 0.17 ABC 4.45 1 4.45 1.19 ERROR 118.88 36 3.30 Total 283.20 79 3.58 138 APPENDIX E: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES FOR OTHER-PERCEPTION TABLE 22 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ASSERTION-AGGRESSION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASUP£ INTHE OTHER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 15.85 1 15.85 9.22** C 93.36 1 93.36 0.00 AC 1.29 1 1.29 0.75 ERROR 61.56 36 1.92 B 5.15 1 5.15 3.00 AB 7.60 1 7.60 4.42* BC 6.12 1 6.12 3.56 ABC 13.13 1 13.13 7.63 ERROR 61.56 36 1.71 Total 269.55 79 3.41 *p < .05 • **p < .01 • 139 TABLE 23 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH NONASSERTION-ASSERTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OTHER-PERCEPTION SITUATION — / Source SS DF MS F A 0.78 1 0.78 0.25 C 20.96 1 20.96 6.67* AC 0.27 1 0.27 0.08 ERROR 112.32 36 3.12 B 0.04 1 0.0 4 0.02 AB 1.14 1 1.14 0.36 BC 0.08 1 0.08 0.02 ABC 0.56 1 0.56 0.17 ERROR 113.76 36 3.16 Total 250.75 79 3.17 *p<.05. 140 TABLE 24 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ATTRACTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OTHER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 0.724 1 0.724 0.282 C 106.02 1 106.02 41.22** AC 0.12 1 0.12 0.04 ERROR 92.52 36 2.57 B 35.85 1 35.85 13.94** AB 1.91 1 1.91 0.74 BC 5.51 1 5.51 2.14 ABC 5.63 1 5.63 2.18 ERROR 92.70 36 2.57 Total 334.88 79 4.23 **p< .01. 141 TABLE 25 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OTHER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 1.80 1 1.80 .08 C 78.80 1 78.80 47.34** AC 0.05 1 0.05 0.03 ERROR 59.9 36 1.66 B 64.61 1 64.61 38.81** AB 1.05 1 1.05 0.63 BC 3.99 1 3.99 2.39 ABC 1.80 1 1.80 1.08 ERROR 59.93 36 1.70 Total 266.75 79 3.37 **p <.01. 142 TABLE 26 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH ATTITUDE TOWARD BEHAVIOR AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OTHER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 5.74 1 5.74 0.76 C 11.83 1 11.83 1.57 AC 2.99 1 2.99 0.39 ERROR 271.26 36 7.53 B 0.02 1 0.02 1.57 AB 0.21 1 0.21 0.02 BC 63.37 1 63.37 8.43** ABC 8.25 1 8.25 1.09 ERROR 270.00 36 7.50 Total 634-48 79 8.03 **p<.01. 143 TABLE 27 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH SUBJECTIVE NORM AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OTHER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 22.98 1 22.98 3.65 C 5.66 1 5.66 0.89 AC 4.99 1 4.99 0.79 ERROR 226.65 36 6.29 B 6.55 1 6.55 1.04 AB 10.85 1 10.85 1.72 BC 0.80 1 0.80 0.12 ABC 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 ERROR 227.01 36 6.4 Total 508.20 79 6.43 144 TABLE 28 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RELATIVE STATUS (A), MUTUAL LIKING (B), AND TYPE OF EXPRESSION (C) WITH BEHAVIORAL INTENTION AS THE DEPENDENT MEASURE IN THE OTHER-PERCEPTION SITUATION Source SS DF MS F A 0.07 1 0.07 0.02 C 1.04 1 1.04 0.27 AC 1.44 1 1.44 0.37 ERROR 138.66 36 3.85 0.43 B 1.66 1 1.66 0.26 AB 1.00 1 1.00 0.00 BC 0.00 1 0.00 0.38 ABC 1-47 1 1-47 ERROR 139.00 36 3.86 Total 283.20 79 3.58 145 APPENDIX F: FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE COLLEGE SELF-EXPRESSION SCALE Introduction There is an increasingly wide array of assertive behavior inventories in the clinical literature. These inventories attempt to provide global assessments of a client's and/or subject's rating of assertive behavior in comparison to peers. The paper-pencil measures have been employed to determine pre- and post-changes after experimental manipulation or therapeutic interventions. A growing body of literature (Holmes & Horan, 1976) suggests that assertiveness is not a trait state but, rather, a function of specific situational stimuli. Consequently, the utility of these paper-pencil global measures is inherently limited. An alternative method to behavioral assessment measures and global measures would be dividing the situational stimuli of the global assessment instruments into several conceptual categories of situations requiring assertive behavior. Gay, Hollandsworth, and Gallassi (1975) have employed factor analysis in the construction of an assertive inventory for adults; how- ever, no published factor analytic reports are available for the most commonly used instrument, the College Self-Expression Scale of Galassi, Delo, Galassi, and Bastien (1974). 146 The purpose of this study was to factor analyze this instru- ment and provide conceptually compatible categories of specific situational stimuli. Method Galassi et al.'s (1974) fifty-item College Self-Expression Scale was administered to eighty undergraduate students taking intro- ductory psychology at Texas Tech University. The subjects consisted of forty-seven males and thirty-three females. The subjects were required to rate how they express themselves in fifty different situations on a five-point Likert scale. A rating of 2 for a situation indicated they always behaved in a certain manner suggested in the situation; a rating of 1, usually behaved this way; sometimes this way, 2; seldom behaved this way, 2» never or rarely behaved this way, A_. Conceptually, each item situation attempts to assess the degree of assertive behavior an individual might express in that situation. Factor analysis was employed to examine common elements associ- ated with the differing situations. The individual scores for the items were first intercorrelated by the product-moment method, then the resul- tant matrix was factored by the principal factors solution. The emerg- ing factors were rotated utilizing the Varimax program. Factor extrac- tion ceased when individual factor eigenvalues fell below 1.00. This is a very conservative criterion when used with the principal factors 147 method, but allows for very stable factor extractions (Lawlis & Chatfield, 1974). Results From the data, ten factors emerged possessing eigenvalues above 1.00 and accounting for at least 88.5 percent of the variance. Table 29 shows the percent of variance accounted for by each factor. Table 30 represents the factors and their loadings of the vari- ables that were at least .40 or higher. Interpretive titles for each factor v/ere taken from those variables with the highest loadings. Factor I is defined as assertion difficulties related to friendship demands. The commonality of the composite items focuses on the behavioral interactions with peers, roommates and friends. This single factor accounted for 25.2 percent of the variance, suggesting these friendship interactions are the most difficult to cope with assertively. Factor II is interpreted as nonassertion due to risk of embarrassment. Although only two items made up this factor, it still accounted for 11.2 percent of the variance. An element of risk is required to ask a friend for a favor and further risk is necessary to walk purposefully in front of a seated audience. In both instances, embarrassment from rejection and inappropriate behavior (e.g., tripping) could occur. 148 TABLE 29 PERCENTAGES FOR ASSERTION FACTORS FROM THE COLLEGE SELF-EXPRESSION SCALE Total Variance Factor Cumulative Percent Percent 1 25.2 25.. 2 2 11.2 36.. 4 3 10.8 47.. 3 4 8.6 55.. 8 5 7.1 63., 0 6 6.8 69.. 8 7 5.5 75.. 3 8 5.2 80.. 5 9 4.3 84.. 8 10 3.7 88.. 5 149 TABLE 30 ASSERTION FACTORS FROM THE COLLEGE SELF-EXPRESSION SCALE Varimax Item Loading Factor 1 confronting peer with constant borrowing of money and not repaid -^^ confront roommate with eating your saved food .76 refusing friend's unreasonable requests ^77 expression of appreciation to a friend for a favor 65 Factor 2 difficult to ask friend for favor .86 stand in back of crowd rather than become conspicuous by .81 moving up front to a seat Factor 3 confronting parents over friend's personålity .67 confronting demands of parents when conflicts with own personal plans '^ hesitant to borrow money from friend -b^ Factor 4 unable to resist friend's demands on your time .89 calling attention to clerk for unfair service after standing , . .OD in line Factor 5 annoyance over last minute date cancellation by your date .81 difficulty in exchanging faculty purchase .63 .40 express happiness over other's good future Factor 6 expressing annoyance at betrayal of confidence by friend .88 avoidance of intimate expression of warmth toward opposite sex .69 difficulty in expressing love and affection to others .44 150 TABLE 30—Continued Varimax Item Loading Factor 7 demanding equal cleaning workload from roommate .92 getting correct change after being shortchanged .83 Factor 8 over-apologetic to others .81 fail to say something when other person is blatantly unfair .84 Factor 9 challenging opinion from respected Other .69 difficult to confront parents when angry .75 avoid social contact for fear of embarrassment .49 difficult to praise and compliment others -43 Factor 10 difficulty in complimenting friend's attire .79 fear of hurting date's feelings by terminating relationship .78 difficulty in complaining to waiter .52 expressing annoyance toward opposite sex .53 151 Factor III reflected lack of assertion in confronting parental authority over personal plans and criticism of close friendship with a peer. Although hesitation to borrow money from a friend loaded this Factor III, it appears to fit better conceptually under Factor II. Factor IV carried two situational items that related to the temporal dimension. Those items loading Factor V can be tentatively labelled as servile. The individual expresses a hesitancy or deference in exhibit- ing honest personal feelings. Factor V is very close to Factor VI in explained variance and, consequently, difficult to label. Fear of emotional expression especially related to intimate feelings will have to suffice as a label for Factor VI. It could be argued that a hetero- sexual component was also present. Factor VII carries two items that reflected the individual's lack of assertion in demanding fair treatment from peers and strangers. Factor VIII is interpreted as acquiescent. The assertion variables with high loadings on this factor are over-apologetic and unable to speak up when a friend is blatantly unfair. Factor IX carries four items that appear to fall into two separate conceptual categories--i.e., parental authority and risk of embarrassment. Two items relate to confronting parents and challenging the opinion of a respected Other. The other two items depict avoidance of social contact for fear of embarrassment and a difficulty in 152 complimenting others. The common element between the four items may total to reflect a sense of inferiority. Factor X, the last factor meeting the termination criterion., depicts items requiring the individual to take initiative in terminat- ing a dating relationsKip, expressing annoyance toward the opposite sex, complimenting a friend's attire, and complaining to a waiter. Conclusion In total, the College Self-Expression Scale can be reduced to twenty-nine items to provide ten distinct factors: friendship demands, risk of embarrassment, parental authority, time-demands, servile, fear of emotional expression, fairness, acquiescent, inferiority, and taking initiative. With the items that load on the factors selected out, it is possible to construct a shorter survey with areas provided (e.g., parental authority) to create assertive situations. For example, if it is discovered the client's nonassertion is related to Factor I, there would be little need to devote valuable therapy time covering the area defined by Factor IV. Thus, the factors give the clinician defined dimensions of assertive behavior to be considered in training.