Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1978,46,47-52.

@ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1978

DIMENSIONS OF ASSERTIVENESS: FACTORS UNDERLYING

THE COLLEGE SELF-EXPRESSION SCALE

DAVID A. KIPPER AND YORAM JAFFE1

University of Chicago Tel-Aviv University

Summary.-A total of 447 Israeli students, both males and females, from
four educational institutions were administered the College Self-expression Scale,
a mevure of assertiveness. The obtained responses were factor andyzed using
the principal axis solution and the varimax rotation method. The results showed
four main factors which included 43 of the 50 i t e m of the original scale. These
factors were identified as the willingness to take risks in interpersonal inter-
actions, the ability to communicate feelings, setting rules and rectifying injustices,
and the presence or absence of a tendency to invoke a self-punitive attitude. The
findings were interpreted as adding support to the validity of the scale as a
measure of assertiveness.

Assertiveness is a term which describes a particular mode of behavior

especially in the context of interpersonal situations. It has a posi~iveconnota-
tion and pertains to behavior which is desirable both psychologically and socially.
For example, Wolpe and Lazarus ( 1966, p. 39) suggested that this term "is used
to cover all socially acceptable expressions of personal rights and feelings."
According to Rimm and Masters (1974, p. 81) assertive behavior "is inter-
personal behavior involving the honest and relatively straightforward expression
of feelings." From these rather broad definitions it is obvious that assertiveness
is a complex construct involving many components of behavior.
A clearer notion of what these components might be can be obtained from
the description of unassertive behavior. Unassertiveness is the opposite of as-
sertiveness and refers to deficits in the ability to behave in an assertive manner.
Thus the unassertive person "is unable to express his u u e emotional feelings,
fails to refuse unreasonable requests, and does not stand up for his legitimate
rights. H e is often taken advantage of by more dominant people and ac-
cordingly has little sense of self-esteem or personal dignity; he is uncomfortably
anxious in practically all social situations. The inability to assert one's rights
results in smoldering resentment and suppressed hostility, which in turn fre-
quently produces inappropriate feelings of guilt and remorse" (O'Leary &
Wilson, 1975, p. 245). Others have ascribed unassertive behavior not only to
behavioral deficits but also to a faulty belief system and irrational catastrophic
thinking (Flowers, Cooper, & Whiteley, 1975). By definition the areas in
which the unassertive person shows deficits are the ones in which the assertive
'The authors wish to thank Berta Zimler of Ear Ilan University, Israel, for her assistance
and John L. Dreibelbis of the University of Chicago for his valuable comments. Requests
for reprints should be addressed to David A. Kipper, University of Chicago, Industrial
Relations Center, 1225 East 60th St., Chicago, Ill. 60637.
48 D. A. KIPPER & Y.JAFFE

person demonstrates competence, and unassertiveness is the pathological side of

assertiveness.
In recent years numerous attempts to measure assertiveness have been made.
Some resorted to already existing tests such as the MMPI and others devised
new, special tests for assertiveness (Galassi, DeLo, Galassi, & Bastien, 1974;
Rathus, 1973). One of the new tests, the College Self-expression Scale (Galassi,
et al., 1974), was recommended as a useful and promising diagnostic device
with satisfactory test-retest reliability and validicy in terms of correlations with
external criteria (Bonder, 1975). But there is still a need to demonstrate that
the scale contains the kinds of components associated with assertiveness as de-
scribed above.
The purpose of the present study was to investigare the last issue and to
find the psychological and behavioral dimensions underlying the College Self-
expression Scale. The results were expected to add further information regard-
ing the validity of the scale as a measure of assertiveness.
METHOD
Subjects and Procedure
A total of 447 subjects, 277 females and 170 males, participated in the
study. These were students from a number of educational institutions in the
Tel-Aviv area and included a para-military academy, a college of agriculture,
and the departments of psychology and liberal arcs of Bar Ilan and Tel-Aviv
universities. Of the 447 participants 78.3% were between the ages of 18 and
24 yr., 9.8% in the 16- to 18-yr. age group, and 11.9% were 24 yr. old and
above. The subjects varied in socioeconomic level from low to upper-middle
status and in their ethnic background which included Afro-Asian, European,
and Western origins.
The College Self-expression Scale is a 50-item pencil-and-paper, self-report
measure. The items are phrased in the form of questions for which the testee
has to choose one, the most appropriate answer out of five given possibilities.
'
These are arranged on a five-point scale ranging from "Almost always or always
to "Never or rarely." The sum of the answer to the 50 items comprises the
final score and the higher the score the more assertive is the respondent. The
scale was translated into Hebrew solely for the purpose of research (see Kipper
& Jaffe, 1976) and was adminiscered ro groups in the subjects' classes. All
subjects completed the scale anonymously and on a voluntary basis with the
understanding that they were participating in "a survey concerning the ways
people tend to express themselves." The instructions were to answer all the
questions including those pertaining to situations which have never occurred
or are no longer pertinent. These were, for example, questions regarding the
behavior of a roommate, dating behavior or specific interactions with parents.
 DIMENSIONS OF ASSERTIVENESS 49

The subjects were asked to respond to such questions in terms of how they
thought they would react to these situations or circumstances. The final analysis
of the responses was based only on those scales which were fully completed.

RESULTS
The data were factor analyzed using the SPSS program for a principal axis
solution of the common variance, followed by varimax orthogonal rotation to
a simple structure. Following the criterion that only factors with eigenvalues
equal or greater than 1.00 ought to be considered, four factors were retained.
Items were assigned to factors only if the loadings were k0.25 or higher. Of
the 50 original items seven had loadings below the cut-off point and were,
therefore, discarded. These were Items 1, 4, 12, 24, 28, 39, and 40. The dis-
tribution of the remaining 43 items on the four factors is shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1
ORIGINAL
ITEMSOF COLLEGESBLF-EXPRESSION
SCALEINCLUDED
IN EACHOF
FOUR FACTORS LOADINGS
AND THEIR

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading Item Loading
2
10
18
20
21
22
23
33
43
47
49
50
Total Items 12

Table 1 shows that the first three factors included 12 items each and the
fourth factor contained seven items. It should be mentioned that several items
with loadings above the cut-off point appeared in two of the four factors. These
were Items 7 and 20 which appeared in both Factors 1 and 2, Items 15, 21,
and 23 which appeared in Factors 1 and 3, Items 2, 33, and 47 which appeared
in Factors 1 and 4, Items 41 and 42 appeared in Factors 2 and 3, Item 32
which appeared in Factors 2 and 4, and Item 27 which appeared in Factors 3
and 4. Items which appeared on two factors were assigned to the factor on
which they had the higher loadings. If an item's loading was about the same
on two factors, it was assigned to the factor for which its content was judged
50 D.A. KIPPER & Y.JAFFE

to be more relevant. Table 1 shows the final distribution of the items based
on these placement decisions.
In terms of their content the four factors appear to address the following
psychological dimensions. Factor 1 appears to address the willingness to take
risks in situations which require interactions with other, significant, people.
This is manifested by the tendency to volunteer or withhold the expression of
one's position, emotionally, cognitively, and through one's actions. Items in
this factor pertain to stating one's position in situations which invite feedback
from others. Factor 2 deals with the emotional dimension. It pertains to the
ability actively to communicate feelings and to assert one's own emotional needs.
The items in this factor describe a wide range of feelings, affection and praise
as well as anger, resentment, and disagreement. Factor 3 appears to address
the 'action' aspect of behavior, specifically the ability to set rules and rectify in-
justices. Items included in this factor deal with responses to off-norm situations
and the pursuit of concrete results by reaffirming the rules. The last factor,
Factor 4, pertains to a self-punitive attitude. Specifically it concerns the ability
appropriately to assess fairness in demands put forward by the others and the
respondent's own reactions to such demands. It also refers to the existence of
a tendency to avoid such assessments by assuming a self-deprecating attitude.
Items included in this factor pertain to the readiness to accept that unfair treat-
ment is not reasonable.
DISCUSSION
Assertiveness, as measured by the College Self-expression Scale, was found
to be a multi-dimensional construct. This is congruent with the rationale which
led to the construction of the scale and its basic assumption that assertiveness
is multi-faceted (Galassi, et al., 1974). The present findings, however, differed
from those of the original study with regard to the number of the dimensions
underlying the scale as well as their content. In their original study Galassi, et al.
(1974) proposed three dimensions which they identified as positive assertive-
ness, negative assertiveness, and self-denial. The present results showed four
dimensions which concerned the willingness - to take risks by way of self-dis-
closure in interpersonal interactions, the ability to communicate feelings, the
readiness to set normative rules and pursue concrete outcomes, and the abilicy
to assess fairness without resorting to self-deprecating attitudes. Although the
content of these factors does not correspond exactly to that of the three factors
suggested by Galassi, et al. ( 1974), nonetheless it fits both logically and psycho-
logically the kinds of characteristics traditionally ascribed to assertive behavior.
Therefore the present findings can be interpreted as adding credence to the
validity of the scaleand support its use as a measure of assertiveness.
But the results may also have broader implications especially in terms of
 DIMENSIONS OF ASSERTIVENESS
0

their conuibution to the understanding of the pathological side of assertive be-

havior, that is, unassertiveness. Logically one can assume that, if assertiveness
involves the willingness to take risks through self-disclosures, effective com-
munication of feelings, setting rules and pursuing concrete outcomes, and avoid-
ing self-punitive behavior, then unassertiveness implies difficulties or deficits
in these areas. Identifying these deficits is useful for both the diagnosis and
the clinical understanding of unassertiveness. Diagnostically identifying the
deficits may be valuable in terms of having a specific description of unassertive-
ness as a dinical syndrome. With regard to enhancing the dinical understand-
ing of unassertiveness, identifying the deficits could provide dues as to the
possible psychological mechanisms which take part in the formation of this
disorder. It should be emphasized that a discussion on these possible mechan-
isms at the present time must be regarded as inferential and speculative. It does
not follow directly from the available data since the items included in the four
factors deal only with written responses about actual behavior and not with
its causes or motives. Notwithstanding these limitations such a discussion might
be of value if only for the possibility for generating clinical hypotheses for
future research.
Thus the first factor was said to refer to the willingness to take risks
through disclosing one's own position emotionally and cognitively in inter-
personal situations. A deficit in this area, namely, refraining from such self-
disclosures, indicates a reluctance to test one's position in realiry which is a
defense against fear or anxiety. An examination of the items induded in this
factor suggests that such fear pertains to a possible loss of self-respect and the
respect of 'others. This might be associated with insecurity regarding the self-
image and an exaggerated need for approval. Earlier findings that unassertive-
ness is related to low self-acceptance (Tolor, Kelly, & Stebbins, 1976), diffi-
culties in self-image (Rathus, 1975), and compliance tendencies (Eisler, Miller,
& Hersen, 1973) ate congruent with the foregoing analysis.
The second factor pertained to communicating emotional content. A defi-
cit in this area involves the inability both to express feelings and to communicate
them effectively to others. This is possibly due to restlessness and insufficient
attention to the importance of emotional gratifications and fulfillments.
The third factor referred to the 'action' aspect of behavior with an emphasis
on responding to situations where the person has been the subject of an unjust
treatment. In its pathological form it is manifested by a lack of ability to exert
control over a wide range of situations. This factor comes closer to the dimen-
sion of self-affirmation suggested by Galassi, et al. (1974) as one'of the three
dimensions underlying the scale. People with such handicaps are likely to dwell
excessively on fantasies and to seek refuge in imaginative perfectionistic achieve-
 D. A. KIPPER Br Y. JAFFE
0

The last factor appears to address psychological processes that in psycho-

analytic terminology are attributed to super-ego conflicts (see Rathus, 1975).
It refers to situations which involve ethical value-judgment decisions and to the
likelihood that a self-punitive solution will be invoked. A deficit in this area
suggests that the individual is hopelessly entangled with internal debate, an
attempt to decide what is fair and what is unfair, what he owes the others and
what is owed to him. One manifestation of this is a constant overapologetic
behavior. Often the preferred relief from such internal debate is a self-punitive
attitude, that is, the willingness to avoid the issue even at one's own expense.
As mentioned in the beginning of the discussion, many of the points
raised above are speculative. While clinically they may appear reasonable none-
theless their validity must be established through further research. The results
may have some relevance to the treatment of unassertiveness. Although the
issue of therapy was not investigated in the present study, identifying the areas
where unassertive individuals may have difficulcies has some therapeutic impli-
cations. These are seen mainly in terms of helping to formulate specific treat-
ment targets which will address the elimination of the deficits associated with
unassertiveness.
REFERENCES
BONDBR,G. E. The role of assessment in assertion training. Counseling Psychologist,
1775, 5, 90-96.
EISLBR,R. M., MILLER,
P. M., & HEIRSEN,
M. Components of assertive behavior. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1773, 29, 275-279.
FLOWERS,
T. V., COOPER,C. G., & WHITELBY,J. M. Approaches to assertion training.
Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5, 3-9.
GALASSI, J. P.. DBLo, J. S., GALASSI,M. D., & BASTIBN, S. The College Self-expression
Scale: a measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therupy, 1974, 5, 165-171.
KIPPER, D. A., & JAFFB,Y. The College Self-expression Scale: Israeli data. Psychologi-
cd Reports, 1976. 37, 1301-1302.
O'LBARY,K. D., & WILSON,G. T. BehaurYior therropy: application and outcome. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N . J.: Prentice-Hall, 1775.
RAWS, S. A. A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior T h e r e y ,
1973, 4, 378-406.
RATHUS, S. A. Principles and practices of assertive training: an eclectic overview.
Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5, 9-20.
RIMM, D. C., & M A S ~ I BJ.RC. S , Behavior therrrpy: techniques and empirical findings.
New York: Academic Press, 1974.
T o ~ o n ,A., KELLY,B. R., & STBBBINS, C. A. Assertiveness, sex-role stereotyping, and
self-concept. l o d o f Psychology, 1976, 93, 157-164.
WOLPE,J., & -US, A. A. Behavior thwafiy techniques. New York: Pergamon,
1766.

Accepted November 30,1977.