AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG
ASSERTIVENESS, MANIFEST ANXIETY, AND SELF-ESTEEM
Roger N. Conaway
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 1978
Approved by Doctoral Committee
Adv i sor Department of Interpersonal and *Public Communication IO-
© 1978
ROGER NI ON CONAWAY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 11
ABSTRACT
Assertive communication is concerned with individuals learning cognitive, behavioral, and affective procedures for improving their interpersonal effectiveness. Training in assertive communication is required for persons who are deficient in the ability to say no, ask for favors and make requests, to express positive and negative feelings, or who experience unadaptive anxiety responses which hinder their effective interpersonal expression.
To further explicate the theoretical nature of the assertiveness construct, two basic correlates to assertiveness were examined: anxiety and self-esteem. Anxiety, self-esteem, and assertiveness were correlated to determine the nature and strength of the relationships existing among the three constructs.
Students in a mid-western university (N=223) were administered a questionnaire booklet containing a self-report measure of anxiety, two self-report measures of self-esteem, and three self-report measures of assertiveness. It was hypothesized that composite scores on the three measures of assertiveness would positively correlate with composite scores on the measures of self-esteem and negatively correlate with a composite score on the measure of anxiety. It was also hypothesized that the anxiety scores and self-esteem scores would negatively correlate.
Canonical correlational analysis was used to examine thé relation ship among the six dependent variables. The three assertiveness variables were included in Set 1 and the anxiety and self-esteem variables were included in Set 2. Results clearly supported hypotheses at a signifi cance level of £ < .0001 on Root 1. Roots 2 and 3 were not significant. Sex differences were also indicated by discriminant analysis on the six dependent variables.
A major contribution of this study was seen in establishing a closeness between effective interpersonal expression and feelings in self. Future research based on the results of the present study was also discussed. ni
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of the Ph.D. program at BGSU has been referred to in the past as close to a religious experience. Though the analogy may be extended in detail to a Messiah (in the Department of Interpersonal and Public Communication) and his disciples (those graduate students in awe about his doorway), the intensity and impressions in the program are indeed real and sincere.
My sincerest and deepest thanks go to Raymond K. Tucker, dissertation advisor and personal friend. His personal assistance and guidance made the successful completion of the entire program possible. Thanks, Ray.
Jim Wilcox and Don Enholm deserve special thanks for their time and effort spent reading and commenting on the dissertation manuscript.
Thanks go to John Hiltner for his part on the dissertation committee as graduate representive.
Many thanks to others not listed here for their assistance in the research and giving of time.
The real hero is my wife, who was typist, not only for the disser tation, but for the many papers and projects.throughout the program. May
I continue to return appreciation and love. IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page INTRODUCTION...... 1
Statement of the problem ...... 2
Anxiety ...... 4
Self-esteem ...... 7
Relevant research ...... 11
Statement of hypotheses ...... 17
METHODOLOGY...... 18
Design of the study...... 18
Description of dependent variables ...... 18
Procedure...... 24
Subjects...... 24
Statistical analysis ...... 25
RESULTS...... 27
DISCUSSION...... 40
Sex differences...... 42
REFERENCES...... 52
APPENDICES...... 56 V
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1 A Summary of Various Findings and Methodological Limitations of Studies Conflicting with Theoretical Contentions ...... 16
Table 2 Results of Canonical Correlation Analysis ...... 28
Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Scores on Entire Sample (N-223) on Each Dependent Variable ...... 31
Table 4 Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Scores for Males (N=103) on Each Dependent Variable and Age...... 32
Table 5 Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Scores for Females (N=115) on Each Dependent Variable and Age...... 33
Table 6 Results of the Discriminant Analysis on Sex on the Six Dependent Variables...... 34
Table 7 Results of the Discriminant Analysis on Sex on the Six Dependent Variables--Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients for Each Dependent Variable ...... 35
Table 8 Results of the Four Group Discriminant Analysis on Age on the Six Dependent Variables...... 37
Table 9 Number of Subjects (N), Means, and Standard Deviations of Four Age Groups on the Six Dependent Variables ...... 39 LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1 Discriminant analysis on sex group centroids on Function 1 plotted in discriminant space ...... 36
Figure 2 A graphic representation of established empirical relationships among assertiveness, anxiety, and self-esteem ...... 48 AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG
ASSERTIVENESS, MANIFEST ANXIETY, AND SELF-ESTEEM
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The subject of assertiveness is currently receiving much attention
in public and professional circles. Approximately 85 per cent of the
extensive existing literature in professional journals on assertiveness
has appeared within the last six years (Lange & Jakubowski, 1976).
Assertive training workshops have mushroomed across the nation as inter est continues in seeking ways of reducing interpersonal communication barriers such as anger, anxiety, and low self-esteem.
Assertive communication is concerned with individuals learning cognitive, behavioral, and affective procedures for improving their interpersonal effectiveness (Lange & Jakubowski, 1976). Training in assertive communication is required for persons who are deficient in the ability to say no, ask for favors and make requests, express positive and negative feelings, or who experience unadaptive anxiety responses in interpersonal expression "that prevent them from saying or doing what is reasonable or right" (Wolpe, 1973, p. 6]).
Assertive training has been found to be an effective method in reducing anxiety when communicating and for improving interpersonal skills. Wolpe (1958, 1973) contends that assertive communication is incompatible with an unadaptive anxiety response. An assertive response
1 2
refers to the socially acceptable outward expression of nearly all
feelings other than anxiety, placing anxiety as a fundamental theore
tical notion regarding the assertiveness construct (Wolpe, 1973).
Alberti and Emmons (1974) note a second fundamental correlate to
assertiveness: the relationship between assertive communication and
feelings of self-esteem:
When a person becomes more able to stand up for himself and
do things on his own initiative, he reduces appreciably his
former anxiety or tenseness in key situations, and increases
his sense of worth as a person. This same sense of worth is
often lacking in the aggressive, whose aggressiveness may mask
self-doubts and guilt (p.3).
They suggest that the assertive individual feels confident and is
fully in charge of himself in interpersonal relationships. A non-
assertive individual, who is anxious or otherwise dysfunctional and does
not generally succeed in interpersonal expression, will experience less
of a feeling of confidence and personal worth.
Statement of the Problem
Wolpe's contention that assertive communication is incompatible
with an unadaptive anxiety response emphasizes the fundamental nature of
the relationship between anxiety and assertiveness. Despite Wolpe's
contention and Alberti and Emmons' notion concerning the relationship
between assertive communication and feelings of self-worth, emphasis in
research has centered on development and application of techniques of assertive training. A variety of techniques have emerged with few 3
empirical studies attempting definitional and conceptual clarification
(Frazier & Carver, 1976).
Few studies have sought to examine the relationship among asser tiveness, anxiety, and self-esteem. Percell, Berwick, and Beigel (1974) studied the relationship among self-concept, anxiety, and assertive training. Their data indicate a significant positive relationship between a measure of assertiveness and a self-acceptance measure, as theorized by Alberti and Emmons. Their study also found a significant negative correlation between the assertive measure and anxiety, but only for women. The lack of a significant negative correlation between anxiety and assertiveness for men was inconsistent with Wolpe's sugges tion that assertive responses and anxiety are negatively related. No other study known by the author in an extensive review of the literature has attempted to examine together the relationships among assertiveness, anxiety, and self-acceptance.
Many of the studies examining the relationships among assertiveness anxiety, and self-esteem have reported diverse methodological procedures and problems. Inconsistent results concerning the relationships among the three constructs has also been evident, possibly due to the diverse methodological procedures and problems. The need exists for further clarification of the relationship among assertiveness, anxiety, and self-esteem with nonclinical individuals from a gestalt or multivariate perspective. This dissertation will focus on meeting this need by utilizing questionnaires designed to measure assertiveness, manifest anxiety, and self-esteem, and analyzing the relationship among them. 4
Anxiety
The construct of anxiety has been considered to hold a place of central importance in the communication and psychological literature.
Anxiety, considered by Hall (1954) to be one of the most important concepts in psychoanalytic theory, was also noted by Levitt (1971) for its central role in personality and personality development. Levitt
(1971) stated that "we are not aware of any systematic conception of personality,...which does not give the concept of anxiety a role of great if not central, significance" (p. 21).
The Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS) was the first psychological self-report measure of anxiety to come into general use (Taylor, 1953).
The measure was first developed by Taylor in 1951 and published two years later (Taylor, 1953). The development of the TMAS was initially intended by Taylor to be used as "a measure of general drive in accor dance with Spence's theory...and not a measure of clinical anxiety per se (Levitt, 1971, p. 84). However, the 50 items were originally selected from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory on the basis of four clinical psychologists' judgments to detect clinical anxiety, and has been used extensively as a measure of general anxiety.
The TMAS is a measure of a general condition of anxiety, rather than a measure of a more specific situational condition of anxiety (a complete copy of the Inventory is included in Appendix A on page 72 and is further described in Chapter 2). The general nature of the instrument can be seen in the wording of some of the items (words such as "generally",
"most of the time", "usually", "always", etc.) 5
Results from several studies have indicated significantly high
negative correlations between the TMAS and various assertiveness measures.
These studies lend theoretical justification for use of the TMAS as a
dependent variable in this study in accordance with the objective stated.
The TMAS was correlated with several standardized assertiveness measures
and two measures of self-esteem. An analysis of these dependent vari
ables measuring the constructs of anxiety, assertiveness, and self
esteem lends additional insight into the relationships between the three
constructs and the validity of Wolpe's and Alberti and Emmons' contentions
Of a more relevant concern to the communication researcher is the
current interest and development of the communication apprehension con
struct (McCroskey, 1970). Communication Apprehension (ComAp), defined by
McCroskey as "an individual's level of fear or anxiety associated with
either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons"
(p. 78), is a rather general construct representative of the total fears and anxieties associated with oral communication events. A high ComAp
person will avoid most communication encounters to avoid experiencing the fear and anxiety associated with the communication encounter (McCroskey,
1977). A low ComAp person will experience less fear and anxiety than the high ComAp person in such communication encounters. A low ComAp person will experience greater confidence in communication events. The rewards gained from a communication encounter will be perceived to be greater than the perceived losses. The low ComAp person will receive greater satisfaction and success in communication events than the high
ComAp person. Thus, according to McCroskey, communication apprehension subsumes the constructs of fear and anxiety. 6
McCroskey (1977) makes a distinction between trait and state anxiety.
When a person is said to be anxious, the person is said to be experi
encing either a relatively temporary state of anxiety or a more rela
tively enduring anxiety trait. These two different interpretations of
distinctions of ânxiety were first delineated by Cattell and Scheier
(1961), Lazarus (1966), and Spiel berger (1966).
State anxiety is a more temporal, transitory, ephemeral condition.
An individual speaking before a group of people may experience a rather
intense feeling of anxiety that is situational specific to the public
address setting. That same individual may not experience intense
anxiety in an interpersonal communication setting. State anxiety varies
in intensity according to the particular situation.
An individual who has a high predisposition to experience anxiety may respond with intense feelings of anxiety to both the public address
situation and an interpersonal communication situation. A person who
is prone to anxiety is said to manifest an anxiety trait, and expérience
relatively high levels of anxiety in most communication situations. The
predisposition to experience anxiety is a condition of aniindividual
that influences his communication behavior across most communication
situations.
Ther Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) is a mea sure of trait communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1970). This instru ment has been found to have high reliability estimates and predictive validity (McCroskey, 1970; McCroskey, 1975).
McCroskey1s instrument was not chosen for use as a dependent variable
in this study for lack of theoretical justification in the assertiveness 7
literature. McCroskey's delineation of the communication apprehension construct is partially in agreement with Wolpe's contention concerning the relationship between assertiveness and anxiety.. However, Wolpe's contention concerns general anxiety and McCroskey's construct subsumes both general anxiety and fear. Future research studies may seek to define the relationship between the communication apprehension construct, assertiveness, and self-esteem.
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem is generally considered to be closely related to personal satisfaction and effective functioning in interpersonal relationships.
(See Coopersmith, 1967, for an explication and history of the development and significance of self-esteem in interpersonal relationships by such theorists as Rogers, Murphy, Korney, and Adler.) Coopersmith (1967) has found it helpful to define self-esteem in terms of a person's evaluative attitudes toward the self. Thus, self-esteem refers
to the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily
maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude
of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which
the individual believes himself to be capable, significant,
successful, and worthy. In short, self-esteem is a personal
judgment of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes the
individual holds toward himself (p. 4-5).
These attitudes may be expressed in certain gestures or bodily movements, verbal reports, or other expressive behaviors. An individual judging himself high in worthiness or self-esteem would perceive himself as very 8
capable, as significant to others, and maintain relatively lasting posi
tive self-appraisals.
An enduring negative self-appraisal is characteristic of the low
self-esteem person (Coopersmith, 1967). Rosenberg (1962) suggested that
the low self-esteem individual characteristically exhibits negative
self-appraisals of discouragement, unhappiness, and anxiousness.
Coopersmith emphasizes the enduring nature of self-esteem. Testing
30 fifth-grade children over a 5-week interval with the Self-Esteem
Inventory (SEI), Coopersmith found a test-retest reliability coefficient
of .88. Similarly, 56 children were tested over a 3-year period with
the SEI and results indicate a reliability coefficient of .70. According
to Coopersmith, the results indicate that an individual has arrived at
a general sense of self-esteem sometime preceding middle childhood, which
persists and remains relatively stable for several years.
The above definition provides a general conceptualization of self
esteem rather than a more specific or transitory conceptualization. An
individual may experience numerous temporal "rises and falls" of self appraisal which may effect the person's self-esteem, but the temporal appraisals apparently return to the existing level of self-esteem charac teristically maintained by the individual. Coopersmith notes that
Prescott Lecky (1945) may have been the first major theorist to support the notion that a person's self-esteem is resistant to change, possibly due to the person's need for psychological consistency.
A second aspect of the definition worth noting "is that self-esteem may vary across different areas of experience and according to sex, age, and other role-defining conditions" (Coopersmith, 1967, p. 6). That is, 9
a person may perceive himself as an excellent teacher, moderately suc-^
cessful at bridge, but poor as a mechanic. Each role is subjectively
weighted according to its importance. The product results in the indi
vidual maintaining a relatively consistent level of self-esteem.
Extending Coopersmith's suggestion, an individual may perceive
himself as very effective in interpersonal communication, moderately
worthy in small group communication, and a poor public speaker. Each
of these communication contexts may be weighted, enabling the individual
to arrive at a general estimate of self-esteem as a communicator.
Both parts of Coopersmith's definition suggest that the Self-Esteem
Inventory provides a reliable correlate with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Scale (Coopersmith, 1967). The SEI is a general measure of the enduring
estimate of an individual's self-appraisals and the TMAS is a general
measure of manifest anxiety.
The Self-Esteem Inventory is one measure of self-esteem used in this
study. A second measure of self-esteem used was reported by Rosenberg
(1965), and is considered to be the first generally accepted self-report measure of self-esteem. The Self-Esteem Scale (SES) was initially deve
loped and tested with 5,024 high school juniors and seniors from ten randomly selected public high schools in New York state. The SES has been found to have high reliability estimates and concurrent validity
(the development of the scale, reliability, and validity are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2). According to Rosenberg, the instrument is an operational definition of self-esteem defined as "a positive or negative attitude toward a particular object, namely, the self" (Rosenberg,
1965, p. 30). 10
Thus, a positive attitude, which contains an evaluative dimension
(Fishbien, 1975), connotes high self-esteem. The person maintaining
high self-esteem considers himself a person of worth. The individual
respects himself and feels satisfied toward himself. An individual
scoring low on the SES, or an individual of low self-esteem, experiences
self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, and self-contempt (see Rosenberg,
1965, for conceptual delineations and distinctions between self-esteem
and self-acceptance, self-image, and other self-attitudes and concepts).
Rosenberg found a marked significant inverse relationship between measures of anxiety and the Self-Esteem Scale. An individual of low
self-esteem who experiences self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, and
self-contempt also reported experiencing various psychological indications of anxiety such as hand trembling, nervousness, and heart pounding. The low self-esteem individual also reported "suffering from 'nervousness',
'loss of appetite', 'insomnia', and 'headache' during the past five years"
(Rosenberg, 1965, p. 149).
The conceptualizations of both Rosenberg and Coopersmith point to the general, enduring nature of self-esteem. Both the SEI and the SES are described as general measures of self-esteem and provide a reliable correlate with a general measure of anxiety, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Scale. The definitive positive relationship between low self-esteem and anxiety is conceptually supported by Rosenberg (1965) and Coopersmith
(1967).
Rosenberg (1965) notes that low self-esteem individuals do not tend to assert themselves, but tend to exhibit characteristics of sub missiveness and docility. Persons low in self-esteem were more likely to o 11
be described as
submissive (easily led, usually gives in, lets others make
decisions, too easily influenced, lacks self-confidence) and
less likely to be described as assertive (can be strict if
necessary, firm but just, likes to compete with others, stern
but fair) (p. 203).
Though many of the qualities that Rosenberg associates with the term
assertive directly relate to interpersonal effectiveness, Alberti and
Emmons more clearly explicate the relationship between assertiveness
and self-esteem.
Relevant Research
The following review of literature explicates empirical research
relating to the relationship among the three constructs of assertiveness,
anxiety, and self-esteem. Results of the studies are discussed in
light of their support or lack of support of the theoretical conceptu
alizations of Wolpe (1958, 1973), Alberti and Emmons (1974), Taylor
(1953), Coopersmith (1967), and Rosenberg (1965).
Few studies have sought to examine the relationship among asser tiveness, anxiety, and self-esteem. Percell, Berwick, and Beigel (1974) examined the relationship among assertiveness, self-concept, and manifest anxiety. A modified form of the Lawrence Interpersonal Behavior Test
(a self-report measure of assertiveness), the Self-Acceptance Scale of the
California Psychological Inventory, and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale were administered to 50 men and 50 women psychiatric outpatients. Their data indicate a significant positive relationship between the assertive 12
measure and the self-acceptance measure, as theorized by Alberti and
Emmons.
Their data also indicate a strong negative relationship of -.88
(jo < .001) between the Interpersonal Behavior Test and the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale, but only for women. A correlation of -.04
(£ «4) was found for men. The lack of relationship between the asser tiveness and anxiety measures for men is inconsistent with Wolpe's contention that assertive responses and anxiety are incompatible.
However, as noted by Percell, et al. (1974), no differentiation was made regarding psychiatric diagnosis of the 100 men and women outpatients and may have resulted in a biased sample selection.
Orenstein, Orenstein, and Carr (1975) reported a significant nega tive correlation between anxiety and assertiveness. A significant negative relationship was found between scores of 86 individuals who volunteered to respond to the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule and the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Scale. Their results support
Wolpe's argument of the inverse relationship between assertiveness and trait anxiety for both males and females.
Hartsook, Olch, and Wolf (1976) compared pre-post test scores of
25 volunteer females on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the
Willoughby Questionnaire (a measure of anxiety used by Wolpe, 1958).
After 16 hours of assertive training over eight weeks, anxiety scores significantly increased. However, as Hartsook, et al. (1976) note, "the absence of controls makes it impossible to ascribe the changes to training per se. Changes could be the result of retesting on the same 13
instruments, intervening life experiences, or a transient fulfillment of
expectations" (p. 325).
Rose (1975) reported results of pre-post tests on the Rathus Asser
tiveness Schedule (RAS), the Situation-Reaction Inventory of Anxiousness
(S-R), and the Willoughby Personality Inventory after assertive training.
Only the results were reported for RAS. Rose indicated that changes on
the other instruments were in the direction predicted and were consistent
with RAS findings, implying that improvement in assertive responses decreased anxiety on the S-R and Willoughby Inventory.
Aiduk and Karoly (1975) reported the effects of behavioral rehearsal
plus televised feedback plus self-evaluation on decreasing nonassertive responses and anxiety. Overall, self-reported anxiety scores of 12
individuals on the Situation-Reaction Inventory of Anxiousness were reduced by assertive training. A limitation that Aiduk and Karoly note in their study is the problem of expectancy effects.
Booraem and Flowers (1972) found that self-reported anxiety was significantly reduced in individuals undergoing assertive training.
Gay, Hollandsworth, and Galassi (1975), when testing the reliability and validity of the Adult Self-Expression Scale (ASES) measure of assertive ness, found that those individuals scoring high on the ASES, scored low on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale.
Others have general support for the negative relationship between assertiveness and anxiety. Galassi, Hollandsworth, Radecki, Gay, Howe, and Evans (1975),,and Galassi, Kosta, and Galassi (1976) found that per sons who rated high on the College Self-Expression Scale were signifi cantly different from persons who rated high on a subjective measure of 14
anxiety. Hedquist and Weinhold (1970) found group counseling to increase
the verbal assertive responses of highly socially anxious and unassertive
college students. Joanning (1976) found assertive training to be an
effective treatment in increasing assertiveness and decreasing social
anxiety.
Not all studies have reported significant results concerning the
inverse relationship between anxiety and assertiveness. Eisler, Miller,
and Hersen (1973) found no significant differences between low assertive
and high assertive groups of psychiatric male patients on the Willoughby
Inventory Schedule. Weinman, Gelbart, Wallace, and Post (1972) compared
the effectiveness of several therapy techniques in inducing assertive
behavior and reducing anxiety. No significant differences were found
between three treatment conditions.
Friedman (1971) reported results of 50 male and 51 female scores on
the Action Situation Inventory (ASI) (an inventory constructed by Freidman for the study), a behavior measure of assertiveness also constructed by
Friedman, and seven self-report measures; of anxiety (Friedman did not
indicate which anxiety measures were used). There were no significant differences as a result of the assertiveness treatment on six of the seven measures of anxiety between pre-treatment and post-treatment group scores. The seventh measure showed only a slight increase in anxiety.
Both Eisler, et al. (1973) and Weinman, et al. (1972) reported methodological problems that may have affected results. Eisler, et al.
(1973) made no attempt to select the 30 subjects used in the sample on the basis of diagnostic classification. Weinman, et al. (1972) contri buted the non-significant results to age as a significant moderating 15
variable and length of hospitalization of subjects.
Laws and Serber (1975) contest Wolpe's contention that nonasser
tiveness is a result of inhibition of appropriate responses due to
anxiety. Nonassertive individuals may have never learned the appro
priate assertive behaviors and may not necessarily be anxious. However,
an N of 1 gives little basis for generalization.
Numerous studies have concerned the relationship between asser
tiveness and anxiety. A relatively smaller number of studies have dealt
with assertiveness and self-esteem. Cotier (1975) states that the cognitive and behavior changes occurring with assertive training lead to
increased self-esteem. Hovland and Janis (1959) and Leventhal and 't Perloe (1962) have reported that persons high in self-esteem are less
persuasible than person low in self-esteem.
Henderhan and Fotheringham (1962) reported results that indicate a significant negative correlation between high self-esteem and general anxiety. McCroskey (1977) found a measure of communication apprehension
(a construct subsuming both anxiety and fear) to negatively relate to a measure of self-esteem. Thus, self-esteem and assertive measures should significantly negatively correlate to measures of general anxiety.
Table 1 represents a summary of the above discussion. Listed in
Table 1 are methodological limitations of the studies, and those studies reporting results inconsistent with Wolpe (1958, 1973) and Alberti and
EmmonsJ (1974) theoretical contentions. 16
Table 1
A Summary of Various Findings and Methodological Limitations of Studies Conflicting with Theoretical Contentions
Study Limitations
Aiduk & Karoly (1975) Expectancy effects.
Eisler, Miller, & Biased sample selection. Non Hersen (1973) significant relationship between assertiveness and anxiety.
Friedman (1971) Nonsignificant relationship between assertiveness and anxiety.
Hartsook, Olch, & Wolf (1976) Absence of controls.
Percell, Berwick, & Biased sample selection. Non Beigel (1974) significant relationship between assertiveness and anxiety for men.
Weinman, Gelbart, Nonsignificant relationship Wallace, & Post between assertiveness and anxiety. (1972) Age operating as an extraneous variable. 17
Statement of Hypotheses
The above review of related research highlights studies relevant to assertiveness, anxiety, and self-esteem. A variety of techniques and measures was employed to test the relationship among thè: three constructs
Results inconsistent with the theoretical relationship among the three constructs were noted and methodological problems highlighted.
According to Wolpe's theoretical view of the relationship between anxiety and assertiveness, an individual's scores on a measure of asser tiveness should negatively correlate with that individual's scores on a measure of anxiety. Also, according to Alberti and Emmons' hypothesis, an individual's scores on a measure of assertiveness should positively correlate with that individual's scores on a measure of self-worth.
The following hypotheses were tested in:this dissertation:
1. Individual's scores on measures of assertiveness will positively correlate with each other measure of assertiveness.
2. Individual's scores on a measure of anxiety will negatively correlate with measures of assertiveness.
3. Individual's scores on measures of self-esteem will positively correlate with measures of assertiveness.
4. Self-esteem measures will negatively correlate with a measure of anxiety. Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study
To test the hypotheses, a single population, single sample analysis
was utilized. Six dependent variables were tested in the sample ana
lysis. Three of the dependent variables were the College Self-Expression
Scale (Galassi, et al., 1974), Rathus Assertive Schedule (Rathus, 1973),
and the Assertiveness Inventory (Alberti & Emmons, 1974). Each measure
is a scale for assessing self-reported assertiveness.
The Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953), Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), and the Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith,
1967) were also included in the analysis. Each dependent variable is
described below.
Description of Dependent Variables
The College Self-Expression Scale (CSES) is designed to measure
assertiveness in college students. Galassi, DeLo, Galassi, and Bastien
(1974) reported the 50-item instrument which utilizes a 5-point Likert
format (0 to 4). The scale is reported to be multidimensional in nature,
attempting to measure positive, negative, and denial aspects of asser
tiveness. Some items were originally derived from Lazarus (1971),
Wolpe (1969), and Wolpe and Lazarus (1966). The scale contains 28
negatively worded items and 22 positively worded items. Concurrent and construct validity has been established (Galassi; et al., 1974; Galassi &
18 19
Galassi, 1974) and test-retest reliability coefficients of .89 and .90
over a 2-week period were reported (Galassi & Galassi, 1974).
A composite score for each student scoring the CSES in this study
was obtained. Possible individual composite scores range from 0 to 200.
Each negatively worded item score was reversed, and a composite score for
each student was obtained by summing the positively scored items and the
reversed negatively scored items. A low score is considered nonassertive.
Normative data were collected by Galassi, et al. (1974) on four
separate samples of university graduate and undergraduate students, and
elementary and secondary school teachers. Mean pretest scores for 120
men is 126.7. Mean pretest scores for 131 women is 120.9. An overall
mean for both men and women (N = 251) is 123.8. Galassi, et al. (1974)
did not indicate a low score for nonassertiveness.
Rathus (1973) reported the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS), a
30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Items in part, are
derived from Wolpe (1969), Wolpe and Lazarus (1966), Allport (1928), and
Guilford and Zimmerman (1965). According to Rathus (1978), the schedule
"in effect, standardizes the Wolpe and Lazarus (1966) technique, while
also including items gleaned from other sources" (p. 51). Highly signi ficant test-retest reliability coefficients of .78, split-half reliability coefficients of .77, and satisfactory validity were reported.
The scale contains 17 negatively worded items and 13 positively worded items. Each item is scored on a 6-point scale from +3 to -3, ommiting 0 as a center point. Each negatively worded item score was reversed and a composite score was obtained by summing the positively scored items and the reversed negatively scored items. An individual is 20
considered nonassertive when obtaining a low composite score on the RAS.
Possible individual composite scores range from -90 to +90.
Rathus and Nevid (1976) reported a survey of 1,401 college and
university students' scores on the RAS. College men obtained a mean
score of 11.6 and a standard deviation of 21.7. College women obtained
a mean score of 7.1 and a standard deviation of 23.3. Rathus (1978)
has stated:
Each therapist must judge for himself the RAS "cut-off point"
he will deem suggestive of the need for AT, but as a rule of
thumb, I have found that those clients who score in "negative
territory" are candidates for AT and that in many cases the RAS
scores are so low (i.e., below -20 or -30) that lack of asser
tiveness is a blatant problem (p. 52).
Alberti and Emmons (1974) report the Assertive Inventory (Al),
designed to assess nonassertiveness, assertiveness, and aggressiveness.
Little evidence has been reported to date on the validity or reliability
of the instrument. Alberti and Emmons (1974) do not indicate procedures for derivation of the items contained in the inventory. Thus, in this
study, the Al is administered concomitantly with the RAS and CSES.
The Assertiveness Inventory contains 17 positively worded items and
18 negatively worded items. The 17 items assess assertiveness. Ten of the negatively worded items assess aggressiveness and eight assess non- assertiveness.
A composite score of the Al is obtained for each individual res ponding to the inventory by reversing each of the 18 negatively worded items, and summing each positively worded item and reversed negatively 21
worded item. An individual's low score on the AI is considered non assertive and a high score is considered assertive. Possible individual composite scores range from 0 to 140.
Taylor (1953) reported a 50-item inventory for identifying manifest anxiety, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS), which includes 50 items originally taken from a pool of 200 items in the Minnesota Multi phasic Personality Inventory. Five expert clinicians were asked to designate the items in the pool indicative of manifest anxiety in accor dance with Cameron's (1947) definition of chronic anxiety reactions.
Assessment of the TMAS test-retest reliability has yielded coeffi cients of .89 with 59 students over a 3-week period and a coefficient of
.82 with 163 students over a 5-month period.
The scale contains 28 positively worded items and 22 negatively worded items. Items on the scale are scored either true or false. A composite score was obtained for each student on the TMAS by reversing ' each negatively worded item, and summing the reversed negatively scored items and the positively scored items. A score of 1 was recorded for a true answer and a 2 was recorded for a false answer.
Possible individual composite scores on the TMAS range from 50 to
100. A high score is indicative of high anxiety. Taylor (1953) reported that in a sample of 352 university students, scores (0 = true and 1 = false) ranged from a low anxiety score of 1 to a high anxiety score of
36. The median score for both men and women was approximately 14. In a sample of 103 neurotic and psychotic individuals, the median score was approximately 34, "a score equivalent to the 98.8 percentile of the normal subjects" (p. 290). 22
Coopersmith (1967) reported the Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI), a
measure originally devised to measure self-esteem in children. The
25-item scale used in the data collection in this dissertation is a
short form of the SEI used by Coopersmith with all ages and presented
in Robinson and Shaver (1975). The original scale used by Coopersmith
(1967) with children was derived in part from items reported by Rogers
and Dymond (1954) and contained 50 items.
Robinson and Shaver (1975) found a correlation of .59 between the
long form and the 25-item form, and a .60 correlation betweenthe 25-
item scale and the Rosenberg (1954) Self-Esteem Scale. Coopersmith (1967)
found the short form to correlate .95 with the longer form and -.67
with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale.
Robinson and Shaver (1975) also reported the scale to be multi
dimensional in nature. Four factors labeled as self-derogation,
leadership-popularity, family-parents, and assertiveness-anxiety emerged
in factor analyses of the SEI.
The 25 items in the SEI are short statements scored either "like me" of "unlike me." The inventory contains 16 negatively worded items and
9 positively worded items. A respondent's score of "like me" to one of the negatively worded items is indicative of low self-esteem. A respon dent's score of "like me" to a positively worded item is indicative of high self-esteem. For example, a score of "like me" to item number 15,
"I have a low opinion of myself," is indicative of low self-esteem. A respondent's score of "like me" to item number 25, "I'm pretty happy," is indicative of high self-esteem. 23
Each of the negatively worded items was reversed, and a composite score for each respondent was obtained by summing the positively scored items and the reversed negatively scored items. A high score on the SEI is considered low self-esteem and a low score is considered high self esteem. Possible composite scores ranged from 0 to 50.
A second self-esteem scale used for data collection in this disser tation is reported by Rosenberg (1965). The Self-Esteem Scale (SES) is a 10-item Guttman type scale (1 through 4), primarily measuring the self-acceptance aspect of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965; Robinson &
Shaver, 1975). Robinson and Shaver (1975) found the SES scored for
Guttman scalability correlated .59 with the SEI and when scored as a 10- item scale, correlated .60 with the SEI. Rosenberg (1965) has reported high construct (predictive) and discriminant validity.
According to Robinson and Shaver (1975), the "scale is brief and thorough in measuring the self-acceptance factor of self-esteem. It has high reliability for such a short scale and can be used without the grouping of items necessary for the Guttman format" (p. 82). Guttman type scaling was not used in this study. Each of the 10 items is scored separately on a 4-point scale (1 through 4).
The SES contains five negatively worded items and five positively worded items. Each item was scored on a 4-point scale from 1 to 4. A composite score was obtained for each individual by reversing each nega tively worded item, and summing scores on each positively worded item and each reversed negatively worded item.
A respondent's low score on the SES is indicative of high self esteem and a high score is indicative of low self-esteem. For example, 24
a low score of 1 (strongly agree) on item number 1, "I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others," is indicative of high self-esteem. A high score on a negatively worded item is indica tive of high self-esteem. The range of an individual's score is 10 to 40.
Rosenberg (1965) does not report mean scores on the SES or normative scores indicating high or low self-esteem.
Procedure
Subjects
Three hundred students enrolled in the Speech 102 program at Bowling
Green State University were allocated to this research project by the
Research Coordinator for the School of Speech Communication. The number of individuals used was 223. Each participant fulfilled a 1-hour, out- of-class research study requirement. Each person was, therefore, serving in a non-voluntary capacity.
Three weeks before the study was scheduled to be conducted, the instructors of the Speech 102 sections received a letter from their researcher. This letter asked the instructors to reserve their class(es) for an in-class research study at the particular time and day stated.
The in-class time was used by the researcher to gain demographic infor mation from the students and to notify them of the research study date.
A copy of the letter appears in Appendix B.
The instructors and students were given three notices of the research study date, each note sent one suceeding week in advance of the date.
(The second and third notices sent to the instructors were similar to the one included in Appendix B.) A copy of the first notice and information; 25
asked of the students in class is included in Appendix C. (The second and third notices sent to the students were similar to the one included
in Appendix C.) ."Triple redundancy was employed to insure low attrition rate.
One questionnaire booklet was given each of the 223 students on
May 17, 1977 at 6:00 p.m. A copy of the questionnaire booklet appears in Appendix A. Each questionnaire booklet contained copies of the six scales used as dependent variables and instructions for each scale. One researcher delivered instructions as nine assistants administered ques tionnaire booklets and pencils. Two assistants were posted outside the research study area to detain late comers to the study and prevent possible disturbance or bias.
Data were coded, punched on cards, and verified for analysis. For efficiency in time and manpower, a Fortran IV program was written by the researcher to reverse scores on punched data cards and to obtain composite scores.
Statistical Analysis
Canonical correlation was employed to analyze the relationship between the six dependent variables. Three dependent variables are included in each set. The CSES (Galassi, et al., 1974), Rathus Asser tiveness Schedule (Rathus, 1973), and the Assertiveness Inventory
(Alberti & Emmons, 1974) are included in the first set of variables.
The second set of variables included the Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,
1965), Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967), and the Taylor Manifest
Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953). 26
Canonical correlation was chosen as the appropriate statistical
algorithm for data analysis. Rationale presented by Tucker (1977) con
cerning selection of the most appropriate statistical model were
followed. The two sets of variables analyzed in this study were chosen
for their theoretical basis and relationship to one another.
A fundamental research goal in this study was to examine the rela
tionship between two sets of related variables. Wolpe (1958, 1973) and
Alberti and Emmons (1974) state the fundamental relationship of anxiety,
self-esteem, and assertiveness. The results of the canonical correlation
-analyses are presented in Chapter 3.
Frequencies were obtained on the enitre data sample and on each
individual scale. Sex and age differences are analyzed by discriminant
analysis for the entire sample. The results of the canonical correlation
(Rc), discriminant analysis, and frequency analysis are presented in
Chapter 3. Results of the Redundancy Index (Stewart & Love, 1968) and
Bartlett's (1950) Chi-Square are also reported. Chapter 3
RESULTS
The results of the canonical correlation (Rc) analysis, discriminant
analysis, and frequency analysis are presented in this chapter. Results
of the Redundancy Index (Stewart & Love, 1968), and Bartlett's (1950)
Chi-Square are also reported.
Canonical correlational analysis is a multivariate statistical
technique that maximally correlates two sets of variables (Hotelling,
1936). By maximally correlating two sets of variables, the Rc analysis
indicates the strength of the relationship of each variable to each other
variable within a given set. The analysis also indicates the nature of
the relationship between the two sets of variables (Weiss, 1972). The
Rc algorithm is appropriate for the data analyst whose research objec
tives include relationship testing among sets of variables (Tucker, 1977)
An Rc analysis will produce as many orthogonal roots as variables
in the smaller set. Since each set contains three variables, three roots
were extracted (see Table 2). Bartlett's Chi-Square (A- ) test of signi
ficance was applied to each root to determine if the Rc coefficient for
each root was significant. The results of theX test of significance
indicate that only Root 1 was significant at £ < .0001, with an Rc coefficient of 0.54. Interpretation and discussion is limited to the significant root.
As indicated in Table 2, Variable 3 in Set 1 retains the highest loading in Set 1 with a weighting of -0.94. Variable 1, though having a
27 Results of Canonical Correlation Analysis Beta Weights = BW; Canonical Component Loadings = CC
Set One Set Two
BW CC BW CC
1. Galassi .08 -.77 1. Self-esteem (Rosenberg) .21 .79 Rc =9.54 Root 1 (Rc)2 = .29 2. Rathus -.50 -.86 2. Self-esteem (Coopersmith) .69 .97 3. Alberti & Emmons -.68 -.94 3. Manifest Anxiety (Taylor) .21 .80
1. Galassi -.53 -.34 1. Self-esteem (Rosenberg) -.14 -.14 Rc = .16 Root 2 (Rc)2 = .03 2. Rathus -.86 -.50 2. Self-esteem (Coopersmith) 1.16 .22 3. Alberti & Emmons 1.22 .32 3. Manifest Anxiety (Taylor) -1.27 -.58
1. Galassi 1.63 .54 1. Self-esteem (Rosenberg) 1.37 .59 Rc = .03 Root 3 (Rc)2 = .00 2. Rathus -1.24 -.17 2. Self-esteem (Coopersmith) -.64 -.13 3. Alberti & Emmons -.21 .15 3. Manifest Anxiety (Taylor) -.59 -.18
Root 1 : For roots 1 through 3, 7-2 = 80.3852 with 9 df £ < .0001
Root 2: For roots 2 through 3,7^ = 5.7259 with 4 df p < .2206
Root 3: For roots 3 through 3, ?£ = .1835 with 1 df p < .6684 29
relatively high loading of -.77, makes the least contribution to the dimension. The fact that each variable in Set 1 is a measure of asser tiveness, the construct was labeled assertiveness.
Concerning the component loadings in Set 2, Variable 2 contributes most to the analysis with a weighting of 0.97. Variable 1 contributes the least with a loading of 0.79. A loading of 0.80 was indicated for
Variable 2.
As indicated by the relatively high loadings for each of the three variables in Set 2, each variable is taken into account in labeling the construct. Each variable is assumed to be a measure of feelings of worth or anxiousness existing within an individual. Thus the construct existing in Set 2 is labeled feelings in self.
The results of the canonical correlational analysis clearly support the hypotheses. Though retaining negative loadings, each measure of assertiveness in Set 1 highly positively correlates with each other mea sure of assertiveness in Set 1. Thus Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Each variable in Set 2 received high positive loadings. As was stated in Chapter 2, a high score on the TMAS was indicative of high manifest anxiety. A high score on each self-esteem scale was indicative of low self-esteem. Variables 1 and 2, therefore, highly negatively relate to Variable 3. The self-esteem construct negatively correlated to the anxiety construct. Thus Hypothesis 4 was supported. Low self-esteem positively correlated with high anxiety.
A significant relationship between the two sets of variables on Root
1 was found. The high negative correlation between Variable 3 in Set 2 and each variable in Set 1 supports Hypothesis 2. That is, high manifest 30
anxiety negatively correlates with each measure of assertiveness.
Hypothesis 3 was also supported. Each variable in Set 1 highly
negatively correlated with Variables 1 and 2 in Set 2. Low self-esteem
highly negatively related to assertiveness.
The redundancy index was computed (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971) to further assess with greater accuracy the relationship between the two sets of variables. The index is concerned with how much variance one set has in common with the other set (Alpert & Peterson, 1972).
The redundancy index for Root 1 was computed as follows. First, each canonical component (the correlation of the canonical variate with the dependent variable) in each set was squared. Second, the sum of the squares was obtained and divided by the total number of variables in that set. The resulting total was multiplied by the squared canonical correlation for Root 1. The final result is the redundancy index. The redundancy of Set 1 is 0.2123 given Set 2 and the redundancy of Set 2 is
0.2124 given Set 1, representing similar degrees of shared variance.
Table 3 reportsthe mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maxi mum scores of the total sample on each scale. Age ranged from 17 years to 39 years with 211 of 223 persons in the 18 to 21 year range. The mean age of the groups was 19.2 years. Of the 223 people that participated in this study, 108 are male and 115 are female. Tables 4 and 5 report the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores separately for males and females.
To determine if significant differences existed between males and females, discriminant analysis was performed on the two groups with all six dependent variables included in the analysis. The results of the 31
Table 3
Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Scores Based on Entire Sample (N=223) for Each Dependent Variable
Standard Minimum- Absolute Mean Deviation Maximum Range of Seal e
College Self- Expression 122.3 17.1 71 to 167 0 to 200 Scale
Rathus Assertiveness 6.5 23.3 -69 to 62 -90 to +90 Schedule
Assertiveness Inventory 87.1 11.6 55 to 119 0 to 140
Self-Esteem Scale ; 17.8 4.5 10 to 37 10 to 40
Self-Esteem Inventory 32.0 5.0 16 to 46 25 to 50
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale 69.0 8.6 49 to 94 50 to 100
Age 19.2 2.7 17 to 39 32
Table 4
Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Scores For Males (N=108) on Each Dependent Variable and Age
Absolute Standard Minimum- Mean Range of Deviation Maximum Scale
College Self- Expression 121.0 16.3 71 to 159 0 to 200 Scale
Rathus Assertiveness 6.8 23.7 -56 to 60 -90 to +90 Schedule
Assertiveness Inventory '86.6 12.4 55 to 113 0 to 140
Self-Esteem Scale 17.2 4.1 10 to 25 10 to 40
Self-Esteem Inventory 31.4 4.9 16 to 43 25 to 50
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale 67.4 8.3 49 to 86 50 to 100
Age 19.0 1.1 18 to 24 33
Table 5
Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Scores For Females (N=l15) On Each Dependent Variable and Age
Absolute Standard Minimum- Mean Range of Deviation Maximum Scale
College Self- Expression 123.6 17.9 79 to 167 0 to 200 Scale
Rathus Assertiveness 6.2 23.1 -69 to 62 -90 to +90 Schedule
Assertiveness Inventory 87.5 10.9 58 to 119 0 to 140
Self-Esteem Scale 18.4 4.8 10 to 37 10 to 40
Self-Esteem Inventory 32.6 4.9 25 to 46 25 to 50
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale 70.3 8.6 53 to 94 50 to 100
Age 19.2 2.7 17 to 39 34
Table 6
Results of the Discriminant Analysis On Sex on the Six Dependent Variables
Discriminant Wilks' E less Eigenvalue df Function Lambda ■X2 than
1 0.06480 0.9391 13.688 6 0.033
discriminant analysis on sex are reported in Table 6. The one root
extracted from the two group discriminant analysis was significant at
£
Table 7 reports the standardized discriminant function coefficients
for the six dependent variables. A coefficient of -0.78 is indicated for
the CSES, resulting in the highest loading of the six dependent variables
The SEI contributes the least to the function with a loading of -0.12.
The centroids for Function 1 were computed. They were computed by multiplying the mean of each dependent variable times the standardized discriminant function coefficient for that variable. The sum of the
products produces a single composite score for each group. The single composite score was plotted as the centroid for that group. The cen-^ troids were plotted for visual interpretation and are displayed in Figure
1.
To determine whether significant differences existed between age groups, discriminant analysis was performed on four age groups. Only the 35
Table 7
Results of the Discriminant Analysis on Sex on the Six Dependent Variables Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients for Each Dependent Variable
Scale Function 1
College Self-Expression Scale -0.77803
Rathus Assertiveness Schedule 0.53280
Assertiveness Inventory -0.39416
Self-Esteem Scale -0.21768
Self-Esteem Inventory -0.12007
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale -0.71793 Group 1 (males) : -180.53 Group 2 (females) : -185-74
-185.74 7 -180.53
1- - - - 1I " 1r i1 i1 i . i i i -189 -188 -187 -186 -185 -184 -183 -182 -181 -180 -179 -178
Figure 1. Discriminant analysis on sex group centroids on Function 1 plotted in discriminant space.
CGTOi 37
age groups 18 years, 19 years, 20 years, and 21 years were used in the computation of the discriminant analysis. The rationale for including only these four age groups was indicated by the fact that, of the 223 people participating in the study, 211 were contained in the four groups.
The 12 remaining individuals were considered outlyers, falling in the 17 year age range and the 22 to 39 year range.
Table 8 reports the results of the discriminant analysis on the four age groups. Three roots are reported, all non-significant at £ <^ .05.
Thus, no significant differences were found to exist between age groups.
Table 8
Results of the Four Group Discriminant Analysis on Age on the Six Dependent Variables
Discriminant Wilks' £ less Eigenvalue % 2 df Function Lambda 'than
1 0.03252 0.9408 12.499 18 0.820
2 0.02243 0.9714 5.939 10 0.820
3 0.00681 0.9932 9.392 4 0.846 38
Table 9 reports the means and standard deviations of each of the four age groups. The age 21 group retained the highest mean scores on the three assertiveness scales. Individuals of age 20 retained the lowest scores on the assertiveness scales and the highest scores on the self-esteem and anxiety scales.
Interpretation of the results of these data are presented in Chapter
4. A discussion of the implications of the relationship that was found among assertiveness, anxiety, and self-esteem is also presented. 39
Table 9
Number of Subjects (N), Means, and Standard Deviations Of Four Age Groups on the Six Dependent Variables
Age Scale 18 19 20 21
N 82 89 27 13
Means CSES 124.0 '120.4 118.9 126.0
RAS 8.2 5.5 0.9 10.8
AI 88.4 85.8 84.3 91.5
SES 17.7 17.4 18.6 17.9
SEI 31.5 31.9 32.8 32.5
TMAS 68.1 68.5 71.7 70.1
Standard CSES 18.0 16.2 18.0 16.7 Deviations RAS 25.3 23.3 20.7 19.1
AI 11.3 12.1 11.6 10.6
SES 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6
SEI 4.7 4.8 5.2 5.2
TMAS 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.8 Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
This chapter contains interpretation and discussion of objectives,
goals, and methodology. Methodological limitations of this study and
questions for future research conclude the chapter.
Alberti ¿(il977) contributes a comprehensive presentation of'the
state of the art of assertiveness, covering nearly a decade since the
assertiveness area began accelerating in popularity. His substantial
remarks include a comment on the theoretical development of assertiveness
"practitioners have produced a virtual ‘movement,1 with little form, only
a partial theoretical base, a great deal of substance, and an almost
limitless potential" (p. 20). Underscoring the comment on "only a
partial theoretical base," Alberti later remarks, "assertive behavior
training is indeed a process which exists with an underdeveloped theore
tical base" (p. 23).
A major objective of this study was to define and explicate the;;
relationship among self-esteem, anxiety, and assertiveness. The objec
tive of establishing a relationship among these three constructs was
empirically stated in the form of four hypotheses. The strong empirical
support indicated in the canonical correlational analysis points to the closeness between an individual's successful interpersonal expression
and feelings in self.
Alberti and Emmons' (1974) theoretical contention that an assertive
person has a high sense of self-worth was supported in this study.
40 41
Assertive individuals, as measured by the College Self-Expression Scale,
Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, and the Assertiveness Inventory, were found to have high self-esteem as measured by the Self-Esteem Scale and the Self-Esteem Inventory. Wolpe's (1953, 1973) contention concerning anxiety and assertiveness was also supported. Highly anxious individuals as measured by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, were found to be non assertive.
When Alberti and Emmons popularized assertiveness in Your Perfect
Right (1974), California State Legislator John Vasconcellos further underscored in the foreword the intense nature between self-esteem and assertiveness.
Every group [in California] concerned with education (conservatives
and liberals, educators and students and parents, all races,
both sexes) is telling us emphatically that readin', writin'
and 'rithmetic have been joined by a fourth basic goal of educa
tion: self-esteem (I believe self-esteem is a basic, vital goal
of every human relationship and institution).
The goal of self-esteem, and the demands of many humans,
make it clear that the very questions about humanness and human
nature and human potential are the most important questions for
schools and education today.
Building self-esteem, increasing our understanding of our- *
selves and facilitating appropriate human behavior are becoming
ever more vital and inherent responsibilities of our education
system. 42
[Your Perfect Right] is important because it speaks directly
at the roots of low self-esteem whether the behavior traits are
nonassertive or aggressive--by elaborating the values and tech-
. niques of the alternative--assertive behavior (foreword).
Concerning effective interpersonal expression in human relations and
institutions, self-esteem would seem to become as vital and basic goal,
not only to the educator, but to the facilitator or trainer in assertive
behavior.
In this study, the affective or feeling dimension correlated very
highly with verbal expressivity in human communication. The closeness of
the assertiveness dimension to the feelings in self dimension indicated
by the Rc analysis was characteristic of the overall data base. A
noteworthy finding was the significant differences between males and
females as indicated by the results of the discriminant analysis.
Sex Differences
Observing the mean scores for males and females in Tables 4 and 5, males recorded higher mean scores on two of the three assertiveness scales, and lower mean scores on the self-esteem and anxiety scales than females.
Mean scores on the College Self-Expression Scale indicated for men are lower than the mean scores in normative data reported by Galassi, et al. (1974). The mean score for men indicated in Table 4 is 121.0 and the mean score reported by Galassi, et al. (1974) is relatively higher at 126.7. Mean scores for women on the College Self-Expression Scale reported
in Table 5 are higher than mean scores reported for women by Galassi, 43
et al. (1974). The mean score indicated in Table 5 is 123.6 and the mean
score reported by Galassi, et al. (1974) is 120.9. As noted in Table 3,
the overall mean score for the entire sample is 122.3, slightly lower than
123.8 (N = 251) reported by Galassi, et al. (1974), Thus, men indicated
higher assertiveness scores than women as measured by the College Self-
Expression Scale.
On the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, the mean score for women is
lower than the mean score for men. Men and women indicated lower mean
scores than reported by Rathus and Nevid (1976). In the Rathus and Nevid
study, men obtained a mean score of 11.6 and women a mean score of 7.1.
In this study, 38 per cent of the men indicated negative scores on
the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule and 41 per cent of the women indicated
negative scores. More specifically, 14 per cent of the men recorded
scores of -20 or more. According to Rathus (1978), a score of -20 or
more on the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule is indicative of a "blatant"
lack of assertiveness. Interestingly, 12 per cent of women and 14 per cent of men scoring -20 or more is a seeming large proportion of a
"normal" university student population. Assertive behavior training for college students seems needed and necessary. Rathus (1978) suggested that each individual facilitator must determine his or her own individual cut off point for nonassertiveness.
No normative data have been reported in the assertiveness literature on the Alberti and Emmons Assertiveness Inventory. As indicated in
Tables 4 and 5, men indicated slightly lower mean scores than women on this measure of assertiveness.
The mean score on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale for the sample 44 of university students used in this study is roughly equivalent to the mean score reported by Taylor (1953) for university students. Due to the difference in scoring procedures in this study and Taylor (1953), a con stant of +50 is added to the scores reported by Taylor (1953) to obtain equivalent comparisons with data reported in this study.
The mean score for both men and women on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Scale in Tables 4 and 5 are 57.4 and 70.3, respectively. The equivalent mean score recorded by Taylor (1953) for university students is 64 (50 + 14).
Concerning extremely high anxiety scores, Taylor indicated an equiva lent mean score of 84 is recorded by neurotic and psychotic individuals,
"a score equivalent to the 98.8 percentile of the normal subjects" (p. 290).
Only 1 per cent of the men in this study indicated a score of 84 or higher and 8 per cent of the women indicated a score of 84 or higher.
No normative data was reported by Rosenberg (1965) or Coopersmith
(1967) on mean self-esteem scores in the Self-Esteem Scale of the Self-
Esteem Inventory for university students. Robinson and Shaver (1975) presented correlational data for college students but no normative data.
As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, men indicated lower scores on both the
Self-Esteem Scale and the Self-Esteem Inventory than women.
Sex differences may also be further interpreted by the centroid scores plotted in Figure 1. The single centroid scores plotted for males and females indicate that women had a higher negative centroid score than males. Men indicated overall higher mean scores on all dependent vari ables except the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule.
One contribution this study has made is in the establishing of close ness between the constructs of assertiveness, self-esteem, and anxiety. 45
This study adds further support and extends Percell's, et al. (1974) study
which also examines the relationship among the three constructs. This
study supports it by finding significant positive correlations between
assertiveness and self-esteem. It extends it by finding high negative
correlations between assertiveness and anxiety for both men and women.
Percell (1977) suggests an assumption inherent in assertive training,
which this study did not seek to explicate. An assumption assertive beha
vior facilitators and other therapists have in common is that an indivi
dual 's cognitive and affective domains closely relate to his or her
behavior. A corollary to this assumption, according to Percell (1977),
"is that it is relatively easier to help someone act him or herself into
a new way/of thinking or feeling than it is to think or feel him or her
self into a new way of acting1.1 (p. 61). Thus, the behavior therapist
expects cognitive changes to follow recommended behavior changes.
The analysis presented in this study is limited in scope by its
correlational nature, not seeking to test the effects of assertive training on self-esteem and anxiety, or the effects of enhanced self-esteem and lowered anxiety on facilitating learning of assertive behavior.
Percell (1974) attempted to further specify the effects among these three constructs in terms of antecedent or consequent relationships. That is, the questions may be asked, does assertive training reduce a person's anxiety and raise his or her self-esteem? Or, does the reduction of anxiety through techniques such as systematic desensitization predis position the individual to readily learn assertive behavior?
A person's feelings in self may be said to function in two different manners in relationship with assertiveness. It may function in 1) a 46
consequent relationship with the behavior (feelings in self are enhanced
by successful interpersonal expression) and 2) an antecedent relationship
with the behavior (successful interpersonal expression or participation
in assertive behavior training may stem from positive feelings in self).
Percell, et al. (1974) demonstrated empirically that assertive train
ing enhances a person's self-esteem. The TMAS, the Self-Acceptance Scale
of the California Psychological Inventory, and the Lawrence Interpersonal
Behavior Test (a self-report measure of assertiveness), were administered
to seven male and five female psychiatric out-patients as pre-posttreatment
self-report measures. Significant improvement was indicated in self-esteem
in individuals who had undergone eight sessions of Assertive Behavior
Training. A significant decrease in anxiety was also indicated.
Percell's data support the corollary to the assumption and the notion
that assertive training reduces anxiety and enhances self-esteem. Percell' data also lend support to the Alberti and Emmons hypothesis concerning the relationship between assertiveness and self-esteem. Alberti and Emmons'
(1974) contention suggests that when a person is able to respond more assertively, that person increases his or her sense of worth as a person.
Many studies have found that anxious feelings are closely and nega tively related to assertiveness, even though Percell, et al. (1974) did not find significant negative relationships between assertiveness and anxi ety for men. Though the literature and data concerning the nature of asser tiveness in relation to anxiety and self-esteem are relatively clear, less clear is the nature of the relationship between self-esteem and anxiety.
Horney (1950) proposes that anxiety precedes low self-esteem. She
suggests that a "basic anxiety" exists and forms within each child. 47
These feelings of anxiety include isolation and helplessness and are a
major determinant of interpersonal ineffectiveness. The feelings of
anxiety may stem from parent and child conflicts.
According to Horney, an idealized image of the self is created by
a child to cope with the basic anxiety. The child seeks to decrease
anxiety and improve self-esteem through the imaginary image, but even
tually is unable to meet the ideal and becomes dissatisfied with the
image. The result is a lowering of self-worth due to the expectations of
self not met in the imaginary image. Horney's explanation provides a
theoretical basis for the antecedent nature of anxiety to low self-esteem.
Rosenberg (1965) discussed the relationship between self-esteem and
anxiety. He suggests, similar to Horney's contention, that anxiety may
tend to generate low self-esteem. The data reported by Rosenberg are
consistent with Horney. However, Rosenberg also reasons that low self
esteem may tend to generate anxiety. The results he reported indicate
that persons low in self-esteem tend to have an increase in psychosomatic
symptoms indicative of anxiety.
Coopersmith (1967) reports data supporting Horney and Rosenberg. In an extensive study of children, Coopersmith (1967) found that low self esteem may produce feelings of anxiousness or apprehension but these anxious feelings may also result in lowered self-esteem.
The relationship between anxiety and low self-esteem appears to be multidirectional. Figure 2 presents a pictorial summary of the above discussion. The interrelationships among assertiveness, self-esteem and anxiety are graphically represented. 4g
ASSERTIVENESS
Figure 2. A graphic representation of established empirical relationships among assertiveness, anxiety, and self-esteem.
The directional arrows of the triangle represent established
empirical relationships. The data reported by Percell (1974) indicated
that assertive behavior training effects both anxiety and self-esteem by
reducing anxiety and enhancing self-esteem. The arrows in both directions between self-esteem and anxiety represent the multidimensional nature of the relationship reported by Rosenberg (1965) and Coopersmith (1967).
Coopersmith (1967) notes: "Although there are undoubtedly variations
in the origins of a cycle from self-esteem to anxiety, the model of a cyclical, self-reinforcing, self-propelling sequence seems appropriate once either state has been established" (p. 133). Assertive Behavior
Training may serve to break the cycle of low self-esteem generating anxiety and anxiety generating low self-esteem, and establish a trend of increased interpersonal effectiveness in the person undergoing assertive 49
behavior. Although further empirical research is needed to further establish these relationships, feelings in the individual trainee remain of central concern to the facilitator.
Though this study offers strong evidence for the closeness of expres sivity and feelings in self, other conflicting considerations need to be taken into account. Laws and Serber (1975) contest Wolpe's contention that nonassertiveness is a result of inhibition of appropriate responses due to anxiety. Laws and Serber (1975) contend that a nonassertive indi vidual may have never learned appropriate assertive behaviors. The indi vidual remains content with his or her own behavior, never aware that he or she "should" behave in a different manner. Thus, the nonassertive individual may not experience anxious feelings.
However, age may interact with assertiveness and anxiety as a moder ating variable. For example, as the individual grows older, he or she may begin to receive feedback from the environment that his or her behavior is nonassertive. The nonassertive individual may then begin to experience feelings of anxiousness.
A second conflicting consideration of the implications of the findings in this study to the relationship between assertiveness and anxiety needs to be taken into account. Seemingly, an individual may appear to function assertively in interpersonal contexts but experience relatively high levels of anxiety. For example, an executive in a highly stressful envir onment may experience anxious feelings but have learned to effectively communicate with others within the environment. Though the executive experiences little difficulty with effective interpersonal expression, the 50
existing feelings of anxiety may stem from other impersonal or environ mental sources, such as heavy work loads or concern over financial insecurity.
Concerning self-esteem and assertiveness, an individual of low self esteem may learn to communicate effectively within a variety of inter personal contexts and still retain a relatively low level of self-esteem.
Enhanced 'self-esteem may eventually occur as the individual experiences greater success and confidence as an assertive communicator. The above stated concerns lend reason to believe further research is needed to establish consequence and antecedent relationships of feelings in self and human expressivity.
The results of this study have implications primarily for treatment or training in assertive behavior. Cognitive restructuring and internal changes taking place during assertive behavior training may create dis sonance initially for trainees. Similarly, awareness of rights and subsequent attempted change in behavior during a session may increase feelings of anxiety for the trainee.
A recommendation that may follow for facilitators or trainees is to emphasize or deal with feelings in clients at the beginning of training sessions. Data from this study support the notion that a high probability exists that a nonassertive individual will experience feelings of anxiety and low self-esteem. The literature has supported that assertive beha-. viors incorporated into the behavioral reportoire will reduce feelings of anxiousness and enhance self-esteem. Perhaps trainers should consider or place greater emphasis on the affective or feeling dimension of clients or trainees, Dealing with feelings simultaneously with assertive 51
behavior may result in more effective training procedures and results.
An affective or feeling dimension to the assertiveness construct was established in this study. The importance of self-esteem to asser tiveness and the closeness of the anxiety construct to the assertiveness construct was established. Directing closer attention in future research to the feelings ah individual has prior to, during, and/or after assertive behavior training may lend greater efficacy to a facilitator's procedures. 52
References
Aiduk, R., & Karoly, P. Self-regulatory techniques in the modification of nonassertive behavior. Psychological Reports, 1975, 36(3), 895-905.
Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. Your perfect right: A guide to assertive behavior. San Luis Obispo, California: Impact, 1974.
Allport, G. A-S Reaction Study. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1928.
Alpert, M. I.,& Peterson, R. A. On the interpretation of canonical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, May, 1972, £, 187-192.
Bartlett, M. S. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology (Statistical Section), 1950, 2» 77-85.
Booraem, C. D., & Flowers, J. V. Reduction of anxiety and personal space as a function of assertion training with severely disturbed neuropsychiatric inpatients. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 923-929.
Cameron, N. The psychology of behavior disorders: A bio-social inter pretation. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1947.
Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. The meaning and measurement of neuro ticism and anxiety. New York: Ronald, 1961.
Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Wiley, 1971.
Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1967.
Cotier, S. B. Assertion training: A road leading where? Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5/4), 20-24.
Eisler, R. M., Miller, P. M., & Herson, M. Components of assertive behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 29, 295-299.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Read i ng, Mas sac hu setts: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
Frazier, J. R., & Carver, E. J. Some comments on the problem of defining assertive training. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1975, 16(4), 369-373.
Friedman, P. H. The effects of modeling and role-playing on assertive behavior. In R. D. Rubin, H. Fensterheim, A. A. Lazarus & C. M. Franks (Eds.) Advances in behavior therapy, 1969. New York: Academic Press, 1971, 149-169. 53
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.
Galassi, J. P., & Galassi, M. D. Validity of a measure of assertiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1974, 21, 248-520.
Galassi, J. P., Hoilandsworth, J. G., Radecki, J. C., Gay, M. L., Howe, M. R., & Evans, C. L. Behavioral performance in the validation of an assertiveness scale. Behavior Therapy, 1975, in press.
Galassi, J. P., Kostka, M. P., & Galassi, M. K. Assertive training: a one year follow-up. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22, 451-452.
Gay, M. L., Hoilandsworth, J. G., & Galassi, J. P. An assertiveness inventory for adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22(4), 340-344.
Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. The Guilford-Zimmerman temperment survey. Beverly Hills, California: Sheridan Psychological Services, 1956.
Hall, C. S. A primer of Freudian psychology. Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1954.
Hartsook, J. E., Olch, D. R., & Wolf, V. A. Personality characteristics of women's assertiveness training group participants. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 23/4), 322-326.:
Hedquist, F. J., & Weinhold, B. K. Behavioral group counseling with socially anxious and unassertive college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17(3), 237-242.
Henderhan, R. C., & Fotheringham, W. C. Development of a measure of self-esteem in public speaking. Central States Speech Journal, 1962, 13, 179-182.
Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton, 1950.
Hotelling, H. Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika, 1936, 28, 321-377.
Hovland, C. I., & Janis, I. L. (Eds.) Personality and persuasibility. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.
Joanning, H. Behavior rehearsal in group treatment of socially non assertive individuals. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1976, 17.(4), 313-318.
Lecky, P. Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Island Press, 1945. 54
Lange, A. J., & Jakubowski, P. Responsible assertive behavior: Cognitive/behavioral procedures for trainers. Champaigne, Illinois: Research Press, 1976.
Laws, D. R., & Serber, M. Measurement and evaluation of assertive training with sexual offenders. In R. E. Hosford & C. S. Moss (Eds.) The crumbling walls: Treatment and counseling of prisoners. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1975, 165-174.
Lazarus, A. A. Behavioral rehearsal vs. nondirective therapy vs. advice in effective behavior change. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, 4, 209-212.
Leventhal, H.,& Perloe, S. I. A relationship between self-esteem and persuasibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 385-388.
Levitt, E. E. The psychology of anxiety. London: Paladin, 1971.
McCroskey, J. C. Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37, 269-277.
McCroskey, J. C. Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Paper presented to the Speech Communication Association convention, Houston, 1975.
McCroskey, J. C. Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 1977, 4(1), 78-96.
Orenstein, H., Orenstein, E., & Carr, J. E. Assertiveness and anxiety: A correlational study. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1975, 6_, 203-207.
Percell, L. D. Assertive behavior training and the enhancement of self esteem. In R. E. Albert (Ed.) Assertiveness, innovations, applications issues, San Luis Obispo: Impact Publishers, Inc., 1977.
Percell, L. P., Berwick, P. T., & Beigel, A. The effects of assertive training on self-concept and anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1974, 31(4), 502-504.
Rathus, S. A. A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1973, £, 398-406.
Rathus, S. A. Assertive training: Rationales, procedures, and contro versies. In J. M. Whiteley & J. V. Flowers (Eds.) Approaches to assertion training, Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1978. 55
Rathus, S. A., & Nevid, J. S. Dimensions of assertiveness: Multivariate and normative data pertaining to the RAS with normal and psychiatric populations, Manuscript submitted for publication. 1976.
Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. P. Measures of social psychological attitudes (Revised Edition). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1975.
Rogers, C., & Dymond, R. Psychotherapy and personality change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Rose, S. D. In pursuit of social competence. Social Work, 1975, 20(1), 33-39.
Rosenberg, M. Test factor standardization, as a method of interpretation. Social Forces, 1962, 4T_( 1), 53-61.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Spielberger, C. A. Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.) Anxiety and behavior, New York: Academic Press, 1966.
Stewart, D. K., & Love, W. A. A general canonical correlation index. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 160-163.
Taylor, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 285-290.
Tucker, R. K. Canonical correlational analysis in human communication research. Unpublished manuscript, 1977.
Weinman, B., Gelbart, P., Wallace, M., & Post, M. Inducing assertive behavior in chronic schizophrenics: A comparison of socioenviron- mental, desensitization, and relaxation therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 39(2), 246-252.
Weiss, D. J. Canonical correlation analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19(3), 241-252.
Wolpe, J. E. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.
Wolpe, J. E. Assertive training. In The practice of behavior therapy. Elms Ford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1969.
Wolpe, J. E. The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon Press, 1973.
Wolpe, J. E., & Lazarus, A. A. Assertive training. In Behavior therapy techniques: A guide to the treatment of neuroses. New York: Pergamon Press, 1966. 56
APPENDICES 57
Appendix A
PLEASE
BE SEATED AND REFRAIN FROM ALL TALKING. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE
WITH ANYONE. PLEASE DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCTED
TO DO SO. READ THIS COVER PAGE ONLY.
1. Please provide the information below by encircling the appropriate
response or filling in the appropriate number.
a. What is your sex: male female
b. What is your age in years: ______
2. You are being asked to participate in a research project conducted
by researchers in the School of Speech Communication. You are asked
to provide your opinion on a number of items. There are no right or
wrong answers. Your responses will not influence your grade in any
way. All of your responses are strictly confidential and anonymous.
In order to insure the usefulness of your answers, you are asked to
be totally honest. Do not ponder each item, but respond with your
initial impression. Before turning a page, check to make certain you
have answered each item.
3. Specific instructions change throughout the booklet. Be sure to read
each new set of instructions carefully.
4. WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED THE ENTIRE BOOKLET, REMAIN QUIETLY SEATED
UNTIL YOU ARE GIVEN FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
5. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 58
Directions: The following inventory is designed to provide information about the way in which you express yourself. Please answer the questions by placing the appropriate number (0-4, according to the code below) in the space provided.
0 = Almost Always or Always 1 = Usually 2 = Sometimes 3 = Seldom 4 = Never or Rarely
Your answer should reflect how you generally express yourself in the situation.
1. Do you ignore it when someone pushes in front of you in line?
2. When you decide that you no longer wish to date someone, do you have marked difficulty telling the person of your decision?
3. Would you exchange a purchase you discover to be faulty?
4. If you decided to change your major to a field which your parents will not approve, would you have difficulty telling them?
5. Are you inclined to be over-apologetic?
6. If you were studying and if your roommate were making too much noise, would you ask him to stop?
7. Is it difficult for you to compliment and praise others?
8. If you are angry at your parents, can you tell them?
9. Do you insist that your roommate does his fair share of the cleaning?
10. If you find yourself becoming fond of someone you are dating, would you have difficulty expressing these feelings to that person?
11. If a friend who has borrowed $5.00 from you seems to have forgotten about it, would you remind this person?
12. Are you overly careful to avoid hurting other people's feelings?
13. If you have a close friend whom your parents dislike and con stantly criticize,would you inform your parents that you disagree with them and tell them of your friend's assets? 59
14. Do you find it difficult to ask a friend to do a favor for you?
15. If food which is not to your satisfaction is served in a restau rant, would you complain about it to the waiter?
16. If your roommate without your permission eats food that he knows you have been saving, can you express your displeasure to him?
17. If a salesman has gone to considerable trouble to show you some merchandise which is not quite suitable, do you have difficulty in saying no?
18. Do you keep your opinions to yourself?
19. If friends visit when you want to study, do you ask them to return at a more convenient time?
20. Are you able to express love and affection to people for whom you care?
21. If you were in a small seminar and the professor made a state ment that you considered untrue, would you question it?
22. If a person of the opposite sex whom you have been wanting to meet smiles or directs attention to you at a party, would you take the initiative in beginning a conversation?
23. If someone you respect expresses opinions with which you strongly disagree, would you venture to state your own point of view?
24. Do you go out of your way to avoid trouble with other people?
25. If a friend is wearing a new outfit which you like, do you tell that person so?
26. If after leaving a store you realize that you have been "short changed," do you go back and request the correct amount?
27. If a friend makes what you consider to be an unreasonable request, are you able to refuse?
28. If a close and respected relative were annoying you, would you hide your feelings rather than express your annoyance?
29. If your parents want you to come home for a weekend but you have made important plans, would you tell them of your preference?
30. Do you express anger or annoyance toward the opposite sex when it is justified? 60
31. If a friend does an errand for you, do you tell that person how much you appreciate it?
32. When a person is blatantly unfair, do you fail to say something about it to him?
33. Do you avoid social contacts for fear of doing or saying the wrong thing?
34. If a friend betrays your confidence, would you hesitate to express annoyance to that person?
35. When a clerk in a store waits on someone who has come in after you, do you call his attention to the matter?
36. If you are particularly happy about someone's good fortune, can you express this to that person?
37. Would you be hesitant about asking a good friend to lend you a few dollars?
38. If a person teases you to the point that it is no longer fun, do you have difficulty expressing your displeasure?
39. If you arrive late for a meeting, would you rather stand than go to a front seat which could only be secured with a fair degree of conspicuousness?
40. If your date calls on Saturday night 15 minutes before you are supposed to meet and says that she (he) has to study for an im portant exam and cannot make it, would you express your annoyance
41. If someone keeps kicking the back of your chair in a movie, would you ask him to stop?
42. If someone interrupts you in the middle of an important conver sation, do you request that the person wait until you have fini shed?
43. Do you freely volunteer information or opinions in class discus sions?
44. Are you reluctant to speak to an attractive acquaintance of the opposite sex?
45. If you lived in an apartment and the landlord failed to make certain necessary repairs after promising to do so, would you insist on it? 61
46. If your parents want you home by a certain time which you feel is much too early and unreasonable, do you attempt to discuss or negotiate this with them?
47. Do you find it difficult to stand up for your rights?
48. If a friend unjustifiably criticizes you, do you express your resentment there and then?
49. Do you express your feelings to others?
50. Do you avoid asking questions in class for fear of feeling self- consci ous? 62
NEW INSTRUCTIONS APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGE. PLEASE READ
THEM CAREFULLY. 63
Directions: Indicate how characteristic or descriptive each of the following statements is of you by using the code given below.
+3 = very characteristic of me, extremely descriptive +2 = rather characteristic of me, quite descriptive +1 = somewhat characteristic of me, slightly descriptive -1 = somewhat uncharacteristic of me, slightly nondescriptive -2 = rather uncharacteristic of me, quite nondescriptive -3 = very uncharacteristic of me, extremely nondescriptive
__ 1. Most people seem to be more aggressive and assertive than I am.
___ 2. I have hesitated to make or accept dates because of "shyness."
___ 3. When the food served at a restaurant is not done to my satis faction, I complain about it to the waiter or waitress.
___ 4. I am careful to avoid hurting other people's feelings, even when I feel that I have been injured.
2__ 5. If a salesman has gone to considerable trouble to show me mer chandise which is not quite suitable, I have a difficult time in saying "No."
___ 6. When I am asked to do something, I insist upon knowing why.
___7. There are times when I look for a good, vigorous argument.
___ 8. I strive to get ahead as well as most people in my position.
___ ‘9. To be honest, people often take advantage of me.
___10. I enjoy starting conversations with new acquaintances and strangers.
__ 11. I often don't know what to say to attractive persons of the opposite sex.
__ 12. I will hesitate to make phone calls to business^establishments and institutions.
__ 13. I would rather apply for a job or for admission to a college by writing letters than by going through with personal interviews.
__ 14. I find it embarrassing to return merchandise.
__ 15. If a close and respected relative were annoying me, I would smother my feelings rather than express my annoyance.
16. I have avoided asking questions for fear of sounding stupid. 64
17. During an argument I am sometimes afraid that I will get so upset that I will shake all over.
18. If a famed and respected lecturer makes a statement which I think is incorrect I will have the audience hear my point of view as well.
19. I avoid arguing over prices with clerks and salesmen.
20. When I have done something important or worthwhile, I manage to let others know about it.
21. I am open and frank about my feelings.
22. If someone has been spreading false and bad stories about me, I see him (her) as soon as possible to "have a talk" about it.
23. I often have a hard time saying "No."
24. I tend to bottle up my emotions rather than make a scene.
25. I complain about poor service in a restaurant and elsewhere.
26. When I am given a compliment, I sometimes just don't know what to say.
27. If a couple near me in a theatre or at a lecture were conversing rather loudly, I would ask them to be quiet or to take their conversation elsewhere.
28. Anyone attempting to push ahead of me in a line is in for a good battle.
29. ’ I am quick to express an opinion.
30. There are times when I just can't say anything. 65
NEW INSTRUCTIONS APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGE. PLEASE READ
THEM CAREFULLY. 66
Directions: Answer the following questions. Be honest in your responses. All you have to do is fill in the blank beside each question, according to the code below, that describes you best.
0 = No or Never 1 = Somewhat or Sometimes 2 = Average 3 = Usually or A Good Deal 4 = Practically Always or Entirely
___ 1. When a person is highly unfair, do you call it to his attention?
___ 2. Do you find it difficult to make decisions?
___ 3. Are you openly critical of others' ideas, opinions, behavior?
___ 4. Do you speak out in protest when someone takes your place in line?
___ 5. Do you often avoid people or situations for fear of embarassment?
___ 6. Do you usually have confidence in your own judgment?
___ 7. Do you insist that your spouse or roommate take on a fair share of household chores?
___ 8. Are you prone to "fly off the handle?"
___ 9. When as alesman makes an effort, do you find it hard to say "No" even though the merchandise is not really what you want?
___10. When a latecomer is waited on before you are, do you call atten tion to the situation?
___ 11. Are you reluctant to speak up in a discussion or debate?
__ 12. If a person has borrowed money (or a book, garment, thing of value) and is overdue in returning it, do you mention it?
__ 13. Do you continue to pursue an argument after the other person has had enough?
__ 14. Do you generally express what you feel?
__ 15. Are you disturbed if someone watches you at work?
__ 16. If someone keeps kicking or bumping your chair in a movie or a lecture, do you ask the person to stop?
__ 17. Do you find it difficult to keep eye contact when talking to another person? 67
18. In a good restaurant, when your meal is improperly prepared or served, do you ask the waiter/waitress to correct the situation?
19. When you discover merchandise is faulty, do you return it for an adjustment?
20. Do you show your anger by name-calling or obscenities?
21. Do you try to be a wallflower or a piece of the furniture in social situations?
22. Do you insist that your landlord (mechanic, repairman, etc.) make repairs, adjustments or replacements which are his responsibility?
23. Do you often step in and make decisions for others?
24. Are you able openly to express love and affection?
25. Are you able to ask your friends for small favors or help?
26. Do you think you always have the fight answer?
27. When you differ with a person you respect, are you able to speak up for your own viewpoint?
28. Are you able to refuse unreasonable requests made by friends?
29. Do you have difficulty complimenting or praising others?
30. If you are disturbed by someone smoking near you, can you say so?
31. Do you shout or use bullying tactics to get others to do as you wish?
32. Do you finish other people's sentences for them?
33. Do you get into physical fights with others, especially with strangers?
34. At family meals, do you control the conversation?
35. When you meet a stranger, are you the first to introduce your self and begin a conversation? 68
NEW INSTRUCTIONS APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGE. PLEASE READ
THEM CAREFULLY. 69
INSTRUCTIONS: Please respond to the following statements by placing the appropriate number (1-4, according to the code below) in the space provided.
1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = disagree; 4 = strongly disagree
___ 1.. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others.
___ 2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
___ 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
___ 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
___ 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
___ 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
___ 7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
___ 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
___ 9. I certainly feel useless at times.
___ 10. At times I think I am no good at all.
INSTRUCTIONS: Respond to the following statements with "like me" or "unlike me." Please place the appropriate response in the space provided.
______1. I often wish I were someone else.
______2. I find it very hard to talk in front of a group.
______3. There are lots of things about myself I'd change if I could.
______4. I can make up my mind without too much trouble.
______5. I'm a lot of fun to be with.
______6. I get upset easily at home with my family.
______7. It takes me a long time to get used to anything new.
______8. I'm popular with people my own age.
______9. My family expects too much of me. 7Q
10. My family usually considers my feelings.
11. I give in very easily.
12. It's pretty tough to be me.
13. Things are all mixed up in my life.
14. Other people usually follow my ideas.
15. I have a low opinion of myself.
16. There are many times when I'd like to leave home.
17. I often feel upset about the work that I do.
18. I'm not as nice looking as most people.
19. If I have something to say, I usually say it.
20. My family understands me.
21. Most people are better liked than I am.
22. I usually feel as if my family is pushing me.
23. I often get discouraged at what I am doing.
24. Things usually don't bother me.
25. I'm pretty happy. 71
NEW INSTRUCTIONS APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGE. PLEASE READ
THEM CAREFULLY. 72
INSTRUCTIONS: The following is a biographical inventory. Please place a T (true) or F (false) in the space provided. Your answer should reflect whether you consider the statement to be true or false about yourself.
___ 1. I do not tire quickly.
___ 2. I am troubled by attacks of nausea.
___ 3. I believe I am no more nervous than most others.
___ 4. I have very few headaches.
___ 5. I work under a great deal of tension.
___ 6. I cannot keep my mind on one thing.
___ 7. I worry over money and business.
___ 8. I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something.
___ 9. I blush no more often than others.
___ 10. I have diarrhea once a month or more.
___ 11. I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes.
___ 12. I practically never blush.
___ 13. I am often afraid that I am going to blush.
___ 14. I have nightmares every few nights.
___15'. = My hands and feet are usually warm enough.
___ 16. I sweat very easily even on cool days.
17. Sometimes when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys me greatly.
__ 18. I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath.
__ 19. I feel hungry almost all the time.
__ 20. I am very seldom troubled by constipation.
__ 21. I have a great deal of stomach trouble.
__ 22. I have had periods in which I lost sleep over worry.
23. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. 73
24. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself.
25. I am easily embarrassed.
26. I am more sensitive than most other people.
27. I frequently find myself worrying about something.
28. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be.
29. I am usually calm and not easily upset.
30. I cry easily.
31. I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all the time.
32. I am happy most of the time.
33. It makes me nervous to have to wait.
34. I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long in a chair.
35. Sometimes I become so excited that I'find it hard to get to sleep
36. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I could not overcome them.
37. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason over something that really did not matter.
38. I have very few fears compared to my friends.
39. I have been afraid of things or people that I know could not hurt me.
40. I certainly feel useless at times.
41. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.
42. I am unusually self-conscious.
43. I am inclined to take things hard.
44. I am a high-strung person.
45. Life is a strain for me much of the time.
46. At times I think I am no good at all.
47. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. 74
48. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.
49. I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty.
50. I am entirely self-confident. 75
IF YOU HAVE FINISHED THE ENTIRE BOOKLET
PLEASE REMAIN QUIETLY SEATED UNTIL YOU
ARE GIVEN FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS 76
Appendix B
First Notice
Some, or perhaps all, of your students have been selected to participate in our project this quarter to fulfill their research requirement. They have been reserved for both in-class and out-of class research. However we are returning to you most of the one-hour in-class research time under the following circumstances.
Soon you will receive a packet of "Respondent Profile Questionnaires."
They will be labeled so you will know which of your sections are being used. We are asking you to administer and collect the questionnaires during the first few minutes of class meeting following your receipt of the questionnaires. Return the completed forms to any of our mailboxes or Hays 119.
The out-of-class commitment will be fulfilled the evening of
Tuesday, May 17 at 6:00 p.m. Students should be reminded to bring a
No. 2 lead pencil.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Conaway, Gritzmacher, Loesch 77
Appendix C
Dear Speech 102 Student:
You have been selected to fulfill your research requirement for
Speech 102 by (1) filling out a short questionnaire to be administered
by your 102 small group instructor during class time and (2) appearing
Tuesday, May 17 at 6:00 p.m. in Math Science Building, Room 220.
Please remember to bring a No. 2 lead pencil. None of what you are being asked to do is threatening, embarrassing, or dangerous. Thank you 78
RESPONDENT PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE
Please fill in all of the information requested below and return imme diately to your instructor.
Your instructor's name: ______
Your name: ______
Your 102 Section number: ______Your Age: ______years
Your Sex: Female Male
Year in College: ____Freshman ____Sophomore ____Junior ___ _Sen i or
BGSU Academic College: ____Arts & Sciences ____Business Administration ____Education ____Musical Arts ____Health & Community Services
Academic Major (please specify):______
Name and location of the high school from which you graduated: ______
Have you ever previously participated in any communication, sociology, or psychology research study? ____ Yes ____ No
Do you intend to participate in the research study to be held at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 17? ____ Yes _____No
Note (for those who intend to participate in the out-of-class session): Sign-in sheets will be available, so that your participation can be confirmed and reported to your instructor.
Note (for those who do not intend to participate in the out-of-class session): If you cannot participate because of a class, work, or commuting conflict, please complete the items on the back of this sheet.
Thank you. 79
Complete the following items only if you will be unable to attend on May 17 because of a schedule conflict:
Nature of conflict: Class Meeting_____ Work_____ Commuting_____
In the space below, please provide the requested information about your conflict. Class Meeting: Class Name and Number (for instance: "Small Group Discussion, Speech 203"), meeting time and instructor. Work: Place of employment and your supervisor's name. Commuting: A description of your commuting arrangements.
Please list at least three alternate times at which you would be able to participate as a research subject. (If you are excused from the May 17 session, we will make every effort to schedule you for a research group at an alternate time. Alternate meetings will not be announced until after May 17.)