Journal of BehavioralAssessment, Vol. 5, No.

1, 1983

The Del Greco Assertive Behavior Inventory

Linda Del Greco 1

Accepted February10, 1983

Previous research in the area o f assertiveness training has been examined

with respect to the definitions o f assertive, aggressive, and nonassertive
behavior and the prominent assertion model. Logical inconsistencies have
led to a refinement o f the definitions o f these behaviors, the inclusion o f
passive aggressive behavior, and the testing o f a new two-dimensional
model o f assertion. The present study has developed a psychometric
test to measure assertive, aggressive, nonassertive, and passive aggressive
behavior in the college dormitory population. In addition, support was
demonstrated f o r the validity o f the two dimensional model o f assertion.
The instrument development was divided into four phases: item generation,
item evaluation and revision, reliability testing and item analysis, and
validity testing. Data analysis supported the two-dimensional model o f
assertion. In addition, an 86-item Del Greco Assertive Behavior Inventory
designed f o r use with college dormitory students has weathered preliminary
validity and reliability testing.

KEY WORDS: assertion; passive aggression; aggression; nonassertion; psychometrictest con-

struction.

INTRODUCTION

Assertiveness training (AT) which has been in existence for over 20

years, attempts to teach individuals methods of modifying their own
behavior. The behaviors commonly focused on in A T are assertive (AS),
aggressive (AG), and nonassertive (NA) behavior. Typically these behaviors

JKellogg Centre for Advanced Studies in Primary Care, The Montreal General Hospital,
1960 Cedar, Montreal, Quebec H2G 1A4, Canada.
49
0164-0305/83/0300-0049503.00/0© 1983 Plenum Publishing Corporation
50 Del Greco

are not defined, rather they are illustrated by the presentation of paradig-
matic examples in which the major characteristics of the behavior are
said to be evident.
Typically AS behavior is characterized by one or more of the
following components: direct expression of needs, desires, opinions, and
feelings (Hollandsworth et al., 1977); making positive statements and
negative statements of a noninsulting nature (Callner and Ross, 1976);
standing up for oneself (Alberti and Emmons, 1977; Jakubowski-
Spector, 1973); making requests (Lazarus, 1973); refusing requests
(Gambrill and Richey, 1975); goal achievement (Alberti and Emmons,
1977); and not violating the rights of others (Alberti and Emmons, 1977).
In like fashion, components of AG behavior most often cited include
making hostile comments or threats (Frederiksen et al., 1976), making
inappropriate requests (Frederiksen, 1976), refusing requests in a curt
or hostile manner, leading or dominating others (Jakubowski-Spector,
1973), and goal achievement (Alberti and Emmons, 1977).
Nonassertive behavior is typically defined by the absence of the
following components: expressing feelings (Alberti and Emmons, 1977),
standing up for one's legitimate rights (Alberti and Emmons, 1977), making
or refusing requests (Alberti and Emmons, 1977), and goal achievement
(Alberti and Emmons, 1977).
Assertiveness is treated as the midpoint of a linear continuum, the
extremes of which are defined at one end by NA and at the other end
by AG behavior (Alberti and Emmons, 1970). A close examination of the
single continuum in relation to the components of AS, AG, and NA
behavior presents methodological problems for researchers. If one were
to place the behaviors along the continuum according to goal achievement
or the expression of feelings, AG and AS behavior would be closely
aligned with NA as an opposing behavior. However, if one were to examine
the behaviors on the basis of violating the rights of others, AS and NA behav-
ior would be closely aligned, with AG as the opposing behavior. Such a varia-
tion in the alignment of the behaviors suggests that the theoretical continuum
does not quite apply to the behaviors, the definitions are incorrect, or both.
Furthermore, the definitions as they now exist are difficult to quantify
objectively because they each have several components. For example,
goal achievement is associated with AS and AG behavior. However,
successful or unsuccessful goal achievement is affected by too many ex-
ternal forces for it to be an accurate indicator of AS, AG, or NA behavior.
A person may in fact be AS or AG and fail to achieve a particular goal
due to external circumstances.
A second component of AS behavior which is difficult to measure
objectively is standing up for oneself. Discriminating between when a
Assertive Behavior Inventory 51

person is and when a person is not legitimately standing up for oneself

is purely subjective. Even if one were able to compile a list of legitimate
situations which called for standing up for oneself, it would be un-
manageable, undoubtedly incomplete, and subject to change as society
evolved.
A similar situation exists with regard to violation of the rights of
others. If one were to use this component in defining AS, AG, or NA
behavior, one would be obliged to define exactly what is considered one's
rights. Again, if one were able to compile a list of individual rights, such
a list would vary according to sociocultural influences and as society
evolved.
As a result of the aforementioned problems, DeGiovanni (1978)
designed a two-dimensional model which eliminated the components yet
preserved the essence of the definitions. In addition, the behaviors are
defined by their position along one of the two continua (see Fig. 1).
Assertion is exhibited when one is using direct expression without
being coercive. Note that this includes the accepted components of assertive
behavior, namely, making positive and negative noninsulting statements;
making requests; expressing needs, feelings and desires; and refusing
requests. Nonassertion is exhibited when one is using indirect expression
without being coercive. This also incoorporates the widely accepted com-
ponents of NA behavior, namely, the inability to express oneself or to
make or refuse requests. Finally, AG behavior is exhibited when one is
exhibiting direct expression and is being coercive. Once again, the new
model incoorporates the widely accepted components of AG behavior.
However, a fourth behavior, passive aggression (PA) is also present when

Overt (direct) Expression

ASSERTION AGGRESSION

Noncoercive Coercive

NONASSERTION PASSIVE AGGRESSION

Covert ( i n d i r e c t ) Expression

Fig. 1. A two-dimensional model of assertiveness.

 52 Del Greco

one is exhibiting indirect expression and is being coercive. Briefly, one is

exhibiting PA behavior when one attempts to control another's behavior in
an indirect or subtle manner.
The proposed model incorporates the characteristic factors of AS,
AG, and NA behavior into two continua. It leads to the discovery of
a fourth behavior, passive aggression (PA), that may be related to the previous
three behaviors and it is free from the logical inconsistencies that were
found in grouping the three behaviors on a single continuum according
to their characteristics. Furthermore, AS, AG, NA, and PA behavior
maintain a definite position in relation to one another on the two-dimen-
sional model.
The purpose of the present study was to test DeGiovanni's (1978)
theoretical two-dimensional model as well as to design a psychometric
measure, the Del Greco Assertive Behavior Inventory (DABI), that would
assess levels of AS, AG, PA, and NA behavior in the college dormitory
population. There are two distinct advantages to this new psychometric
measure. First, it includes all four behaviors. Second, it yields four separate
scores, which eliminates information loss which would be present in a single
averaged score. In addition, separate scores will allow researchers to
determine how each of the behaviors change in relation to one another
over time.
Given the person-specific aspect of the behaviors under investigation,
the author has narrowed the focus of the DABI to include only those
interactions which are most typical of dormitory students, namely, interac-
tions which occur among peers. Because of its special status, interactions
with a significant other have been purposely excluded. Similarly, given the
situation specific aspect of the behaviors under investigation (Galassi and
Galassi, 1978), only situations that were specific to dormitory living were
included. Therefore, the DABI is a measure of AS, AG, NA, and PA
behavior of college dormitory students relative to their dormitory ex-
perience.

METHOD

Subjects
The subjects in this study were predominantly white middle-class under-
graduate students officially residing in the dormitories of the State
University of New York at Buffalo (SUNYAB) who were at least 18
years of age. Each of the 5000 students residing within the dormitories was
assigned an ordinal number. Using a computer program, 1000 nonrepeating
Assertive Behavior Inventory 53

random numbers were generated, from a pool of numbers ranging from

1 to 5000. Each student whose ordinal number corresponded to one of the
randomly generated numbers constituted the sample for this study. The
first 500 students whose names were randomly selected were asked to
participate in the reliability phase and the second 500 were asked to par-
ticipate in the validity phase of the study. The students who participated
on the item evaluation and revision phase were predominantly white
middle-class graduate dormitory students who volunteered to act as judges.

Item Generation

Forty resident advisors, representing all four dormitory complexes

at SUNYAB, volunteered to distribute an Assertive Inventory Sheet
(AIS) to five volunteers residing on their floors. The AIS defined and
illustrated, by examples, the four target behaviors. Each participant was
asked to record at least five situations in which he or she had witnessed
or experienced interactions, within his or her present peer group, in-
volving any of the target behaviors. The volunteers were specifically
asked to exclude all interactions other than peer interactions. All AISs
were distributed and collected within a 1-week period. A total of 121 AISs
were returned, yielding 605 possible items.

Item Evaluation and Revision

Of the 605 situations submitted, 130 were selected for further review.
Items were retained based on the following criteria: situations had to be
considered typical of the dormitory population, repetition of situations was
prevented, and situations had to deal with the peer group. The researcher
then transposed the recorded situations, plus generated 12 additional situa-
tions, into 142 succinct items, all of which included a situation and a target
behavior.
The 142 items were then evaluated by 10 dormitory directors (hence-
forth called judges) who also resided within one of the four dormitory
complexes. Each judge was asked to identify the behavior in each item as
AS, AG, PA, NA, or indeterminate based on the predetermined defini-
tions of the target behaviors. All indeterminate judgments required an
explanation by the rater. In addition, any and all comments were
encouraged.
The judges unanimously agreed upon the behavior of 79 items, which
were retained unaltered, except where judges' comments could improve the
item. When four or more judges misjudged an item and the item could
54 Del Greco

not be salvaged by their comments, that item was eliminated, reducing the
pool of items to 98.

Reliability Testing and Item Analysis

The 23 AS, 26 NA, 21 AG, and 28 PA items were randomly numbered

to form the preliminary form of the DABI. A five-point Likert scale was
used to answer each question, for which the subjects received 1-5 points
(increasing by units) for selecting "almost never," "seldom," "sometimes,"
"often," or "almost always," respectively. The preliminary DABI was then
distributed by the resident advisors to the subjects, along with instructions
and an informed consent slip. Within a week 361 usable answer sheets
were returned, a 72% response rate.
The 96 items were examined to determine whether the items clustered
as predicted. A rotated principal-components plot revealed that, in general,
the items clustered into the expected four groups. However, the Spread
between the AS and the AG items was larger than expected and the spread
between the PA and the AG items was smaller than expected. Suggestions
for the correction of this situation are offered in the Discussion.
A matrix of the correlation of each item with all other items designed
to represent the same behavior was computed. The results indicated
that for all but six of the items, the highest positive correlation was w i t h
the correct scale. Items which best correlated with-a scale other than the
intended scale or were criticized by the subjects, were eliminated. Two
items which showed near-equal correlations with the desired and an
undesired scale were contextually modified to improve their correlations
with the desired scale.
An extended vectors plot of the second and third factors of the AS items
revealed a separation among the assertive items. The items which clustered
around the center of the plot were items concerned with reacting in an
AS manner or refusing requests. All but one of the items which were out-
liers were concerned with positive behavior. Although these items were
outliers, all but one was considered to be theoretically sound in terms of the
definition of AS behavior. Therefore, in order to better balance the pool of
AS items, four new positive items were added. The remaining outlier was
eliminated because, upon examination, it was found to be nonrepresenta-
tive of the population.
As a result of separate factor analyses of the PA and AG items, it
was determined that four items were outliers, and these were therefore
eliminated from the measure, yielding an 87-item DABI.
Assertive Behavior Inventory 55

A second correlation matrix for each remaining item with its intended
scale showed very little change in the scale scores. Therefore, it was
concluded that the eliminated items had not contributed much to their
respective scales. The coefficient alphas for the four scales are as follows:
AS = 0.83 (mean = 72.8, SD = 12.8), A G = 0.91 (mean = 33.7, SD =
12.0), P A = 0.90 (mean = 39.1, SD = 11.9), and N A = 0.85 (mean =
55.2, SD --- 12.5). Each of these alphas has a p value o f less than 0.001.
The high coefficient alphas indicate that the scales are highly reliable.
A principal-components plot, derived from the correlations a m o n g
scale scores (the correlation between each item and its intended scale),
corrected for attenuation, was constructed (see Fig. 2). The best two-
dimensional representation of the AS, AG, PA, and N A behaviors clusters
resulted in a plot which is quite similar to that o f DeGiovanni (1978).
Replication of DeGiovanni's (1978) results indicates that the relationship
a m o n g the target behaviors is not a r a n d o m event and that the AS model
fits a two-dimensional model.

Assertion

Nonassertion

t
I

Passive t
Aggression i Aggression
i
i

Fig. 2. Plot of the principal components of the four target behaviors corrected for
attenuation.
56 Del Greco

Validity Testing

During the validity testing phase, each subject received a data packet
which contained the revised DABI, the College Self-Expression Scale
(Galassi et al., 1974) and three scales of the Buss-Durkee Aggression
Inventory (Buss and Durkee, 1957), a letter of introduction, an NCR
answer sheet, and an informed consent.
A total Of 257 answer sheets were returned to the examiner, of which
8 were discarded due to the omission of six or more answers. For answer
sheets with five or fewer omissions, the researchers substituted the mean
score for the scale to which the omitted item belonged.
Correlation coefficients for each item with all scale scores indicated
that all items except for Nos. 19, 44, 52, and 70 correlated most positively
with the desired scale score. The correlation of one of the revised items from
the previous phase decreased, and it was therefore eliminated from the
DABI, yielding a total of 86 items.
The coefficient alphas for the DABI AS, AG, PA, and NA Scales
are 0.83, 0.87, 0.87, and 0.82, respectively. The coefficient alphas for the
CSES is 0.91 (all p values are < 0.001). Finally, the coefficient alphas for
the Buss-Durkee Inventory's Indirect Aggression, Assault, and Verbal
Aggression Scales are 0.59, 0.73, and 0.62, respectively (all p values are
< 0.001).
A correlation matrix for all the DABI scales, the BDI, and the CSES
is presented in Table I. The correlation coefficient between the BDI's
Indirect AG Scale and the DABI PA Scale was low, but understandable
given the BDI Indirect AG Scale's unexpected poor coefficient alpha.
Second, during the reliability testing phase, eight PA items were eliminated
which had very closely fit the DBI definition of indirect aggression. As
a result, only one item remained in the revised DABI PA pool which fit
the Buss-Durkee Indirect AG definition. Therefore, a zero or a low correla-
tion between the BDI Indirect Aggression Scale and the DABI PA Scale
was understandable.
A similar situation was extant in examining the discriminant validity
of the DABI AS Scale. Originally, the researcher expected a negative
correlation between the DABI AS Scale and the BDI Indirect AG Scale.
The 0.07 correlation, although close to zero, still fell short of being nega-
tive. This result was not surprising given the BDI Indirect AG Scale's
unexpected low reliability and the evolution in the definition of PA.
Therefore, one cannot make a definitive statement regarding the dis-
criminant validity of the DABI PA Scale based on this correlation.
However, if one were to look at the correlation between the DABI PA
and the DABI AS Scales, the negative correlation was realized.
Assertive B e h a v i o r I n v e n t o r y 57

c~

ii
c~

rl

;<

L~

I
e~

'5

<.<
58 Del Greco

IIABI Assertion

IKBI 14onassertion / /

CSES

Fig. 3. Configuration of disattenuated DABI Assertion, Nonassertion, and CSES

Scales.

Negative correlations between the DABI NA Scale and the BDI

Assault and Verbal Aggression Scales were achieved, supporting the DABI's
validity.
Since the CSES was not comprised of two separate scales, simple
correlations could not be utilized to examine the convergent and dis-
criminant validity of the DABI AS and NA Scales. However, since the
CSES was made up of an approximately equal number of AS and NA
items, a two-dimensional geometric representation of the correlations
among the CSES, DABI AS, and DABI NA Scales, corrected for attenua-
tion, was examined.
The most efficient two-dimensional view of the configuration of the
DABI AS and NA Scales and the CSES is presented in Fig. 3. The vector
for the CSES is in a position that would be expected from a scale com-

DABI Aggression
/DABI Passive
Aggression

Projected Negative
/......... Nonassertion Scale of CSES
CSES

Fig. 4. Configuration of disattenuatedDABIAggression and Passive Aggression Scales

and the CSES.
Assertive Behavior Inventory 59

prised of positively scored AS items and projected reversed (negatively

scored) nonassertive items. The vector patterns produced by the CSES AS
and projected negative nonassertion items supported the convergent validity
of the DABI AS and NA Scales.
Similarly the discriminant validity fo the DABI AS and PA Scales
had to be determined by examining the correlation pattern among the
DABI AG and PA Scales and the CSES. The configuration (see Fig. 4)
shows a separation of the DABI AG and PA Scales from the CSES AS and
projected negatively scored nonassertion items.

DISCUSSSION

As a result of the data analyses the characteristics of the DABI

PA items changed dramatically. Items which included pouting or violence
against objects were either rejected by the subjects or did not belong to
any major factor. As a result, all but one of the remaining passive ag-
gressive items are concerned with manipulation.
Although the AS, AG, PA, and NA item clusters did not fit perfectly
into the two-dimensional model, they fit quite closely. The results of
both the present research and that of DeGiovanni (1978) indicate that the
AS, AG, PA, and NA clusters clearly fall into two dimensions. However,
since the AG and PA items group closely together, it is still debatable
whether a three-pronged (combining AG and PA into a single behavior)
or a four-pronged (further separating AG and PA) diagram is more
appropriate. This researcher believes that more efforts should be applied to
separating the AG and PA clusters.
Similarly, the spread between the PA and the AG Scales can be
widened by increasing the number of manipulative items in the PA Scale.
In addition, the spread between the NA and the AS clusters may be
decreased by adding several items to the NA cluster which involve the
subject being slightly more verbal.
The reliability of the AS, AG, PA, and NA Scales using coefficient
alpha was respectable. Convergent and discriminant validity in most cases
turned out as expected. Unfortunately, as the PA Scale of the DABI
evolved, the DBI Indirect Aggression Scale became inappropriate and, as
such, leaves some question regarding the convergent and discriminant
validity of the DABI PA and AS Scales, respectively. However, the DABI
PA and AS Scales did plot as expected given the two-dimensional model
and were negatively correlated with one another.
In conclusion, the DABI designed for use with college dormitory
students has weathered its first reliability and validity testing favorably.
60 Del Greco

The author recommends that further testing be conducted to improve its

reliability and validity particularly using behavioral measures. Second,
the DABI testing procedure substantiates the two-dimensional model of
a s s e r t i o n . F u r t h e r t e s t i n g o f t h i s m o d e l is a l s o r e c o m m e n d e d .

APPENDIX: DEL GRECO ASSERTIVE BEHAVIOR INVENTORY

Directions: Read each item carefully. Indicate the degree to which each item is character-
istic o f you by selecting the appropriate letter.
A - - ALMOST NEVER B -- SELDOM C - SOMETIMES D -- OFTEN
E - ALMOST ALWAYS
(na) 1. I often go places with may friends even though I know I won't enjoy myself.
(as) 2. When my friends want to go out and I don't, I explain to my friends that I
honestly don't feel like going out.
(ag) 3. When my roommate complains to me I loudly tell my roommate to shut up
and stop complaining.
(na) 4. I ignore the things that my roommate does that anger me.
(as) 5. When a friend asks me how I like a new outfit, I express my honest opinion.
(as) 6. If I was having difficulty conversing on a dormitory hall telephone because
a group o f nearby students were being noisy, I would ask the students to
lower their voices.
(as) 7. I compliment my friends when I think they look good.
(as) 8. When my friends and I are discussing where to go to eat dinner, I express
my honest preference.
(as) 9. When I have a problem, I discuss it openly with a friend.
(pa) 10. I tell my roommate that I don't mind if the phone rings early in the morning,
but I manage to get people to stop calling early by being curt with them
when they do call.
(as) 11. I congratulate friends when they do well on exams.
(ha) 12. I do not ask floormates to return the money that they borrow from me,
even though I need it.
(as) 13. When I need help, I ask a friend to help me.
(as) 14. When a friend asks my opinion of a new record, I honestly state my opinion.
(ag) 15. I scream and yell at my friend if I find out that my friend forgot to hand in
my homework.
(as) 16. If I'm studying in my room and a friend drops by, I'll ask my friend not to
stay long because I'm studying.
(ag) 17. When my roommates keep waking me up, I get out of bed and have a fist
fight with them.
(ag) 18. I hit those floormates who wake me up continually by making noise in the
hall.
(pa) 19. In the T.V. lounge I get to watch the program of my choice, even though I
say that I have no preferences, by criticizing all other suggestions.
(ag) 20. When I argue with a floor member I call that floor member many unpleas-
ant names.
(pa) 21. I tell a friend of mine that it is okay to copy my answers during tests, but I
intentionally cover my paper during exams.
(na) 22. When I get angry at my friends, I hide my anger.
(na) 23. When my roommate constantly leaves my stereo on, I don't s a y anything
about it, even though it angers me.
(as) 24. If my roommate has been using the phone for along time, I ask my room-
mate to cut the conversation short so that I can make an important phone
call.
Assertive Behavior Inventory 61

Appendix. Continued
(ag) 25. When I get into m y r o o m after having been locked out by m y r o o m m a t e ,
I start hitting m y r o o m m a t e .
(as) 26. I ask m y friends to leave the r o o m when I want to go to sleep.
(as) 27. I ask the people who occupy the room next door to me to lower their stereo
when it gets too loud.
(pa) 28. I convince friends to remain on campus for m y benefit while I tell them to
do what they want.
(as) 29. While studying for finals, I ask the noisy people in the hall to lower their
voices, or move into the lounge.
(as) 30. I am able to express m y honest opinion with m y friends.
(ag) 31. I yell at students who cut ahead o f me on the drop and add line.
(ag) 32. When students walk into m y r o o m without knocking I push them out of the
r o o m and lock the door.
(pa) 33. W h e n m y friends don't want to go to the movies and I want to go, I say
things like "I hate going to the movies alone, so I guess I'll have to stay
home", in order to persuade them to change their minds.
(as) 34. I ask m y friends not to smoke cigarettes in m y room.
(pa) 35. When m y friends want to go to the movies and I want to go to a bar, I
deliberately take so m u c h time getting ready that we miss the beginning of
the movie and therefore go to the bar.
(ha) 36. I tell m y friends it is okay to borrow m y typewriter even though I don't like
to lend it out.
(pa) 37. While trying to find out if one of m y friends was m a d at me, rather than
ask directly, I manipulate the conversation until I get the information I
want.
(ag) 38. W h e n other dormitory students a n n o y me I threaten to strike them.
(ag) 39. W h e n students a n n o y me I abuse them verbally.
(pa) 40. I would convince m y r o o m m a t e s not to move o f f campus by telling them
all the advantages o f dormitories, when m y real reason is that I don't want
to get new roommates.
(ag) 41. I pick fights with floormates, until I get m y way.
(pa) 42. When it's late and I want to go to bed, instead of admitting that I'm tired,
I tell m y r o o m m a t e and friends that they look tired and should get some
sleep.
(pa) 43. When I a m asked for m y preference l pretend I don't have one, but then I
convince m y friends of the advantages of m y hidden preferences.
(as) 44. W h e n I need to go shopping I ask a friend for a ride to the store.
(ha) 45. When students working in the union short change me I don't say anything.
(as) 46. When I meet new r o o m m a t e s I suggest that we share the r o o m chores.
(ag) 47. I tell m y friends that if they don't stop annoying me I will literally throw
them out o f the room.
(ag) 48. I tell m y r o o m m a t e s that I will beat them up if they don't lower the stereo
while I a m using the telephone.
(as) 49. I discuss m y point o f view in study groups.
(na) 50. My roommate's cigarette smoke annoys me, but I don't say anything.
(na) 51. I allow m y r o o m m a t e to prepare food on m y desk even though I don't
like the mess that is left on m y desk.
(pa) 52. I convince m y friends to buy sweaters that I know I want to borrow.
(ag) 53. When I a m m a d at my friends I tell them to shut up or I'll punch them.
(as) 54. I ask m y r o o m m a t e s to clean up their dirty dishes which are cluttering up
the room.
(na) 55. I frequent the bars m y friends like even though I like other bars.
(pa) 56. I will indirectly convince m y friends to buy what 1 want when we go grocery
shopping.
(ag) 57. After m y r o o m m a t e insults me, I throw objects at m y roommate.
(na) 58. I let m y friend talk me into lending out five dollars even though I need it.
62 Del Greco

Appendix. Continued

(as) 59. W h e n students in the library are talking, I politely ask them to lower their
voices.
(as) 60 I ask students who get ahead of me in the drop and add line to take their
correct places at the end of the line.
(pa) 61. I pretend I have no preferences concerning which game to play, but I
manage to manipulate m y friend into selecting m y hidden preference.
(pa) 62. I try to convinve m y friend to take the same class as me by saying that the
class is very stimulating, when the true reason is that I don't want to travel
to class alone.
(as) 63. W h e n my r o o m m a t e asks to borrow my camera I say no and explain that I
do not like to lend out m y possessions.
(na) 64. I pretend to like the music that m y friends like.
(ha) 65. I tell m y friends that I don't mind going to the store for them, even though I
do mind.
(na) 66. W h e n I want to go to sleep and m y r o o m m a t e s are running around the
room, I wait for them to quiet down without saying anything.
(as) 67. W h e n m y r o o m m a t e buys an outfit that I like, I will compliment m y room-
mate's good taste.
(ha) 68. I don't say anything when m y r o o m m a t e drowns out the T.V. p r o g r a m I am
watching with the stereo.
(pa) 69. W h e n m y friend asks me for m y opinion, I state that I have none, then I
proceed to m a k e m y true preference seem the most attractive.
(pa) 70. I will deny being angry at m y friends for planning to go out when I cannot
attend, but I will try to get them to change the date by stomping around m y
r o o m in their presence.
(pa) 71. W h e n I feel that I am not getting enough attention, I become introverted
knowing that people will start seeking me out.
(na) 72. I consent to go out to eat with m y friends even though I don't want to go.
(ag) 73. W h e n a friend breaks my confidence I make serious threats.
(pa) 74. W h e n going out with friends, I pretend to have no preferences in deciding
which bar we go to, but I carefully arrange it so that we go to the bar of m y
choice.
(pa) 75. I convince m y friends to go to the store for me, without directly asking.
(as) 76. W h e n I find myself angry at some of my roommate's habits, I discuss the
matter with m y r o o m m a t e .
(na) 77. If I were studying in m y r o o m and m y r o o m m a t e disturbed me by turning
on the stereo, I would pretend that I was finished studying.
(pa) 78. If I ~vas hungry early, I would convince my friends to go to dinner early by
saying that we would get the best food.
(as) 79. W h e n people enter m y r o o m without knocking, I ask them to knock on the
door in the future.
(ha) 80. I listen to the music that m y friends like, even though I don't like it.
(na) 81. I don't like people smoking in m y room, but when someone does light up
a cigarette, I don't say anything.
(ag) 82. W h e n m y r o o m m a t e tells me that I have to pay our entire phone bill, I
scream and yell.
(ha) 83. I find myself washing m y roommate's dishes rather than saying something
about the unpleasant situation.
(na) 84. W h e n m y friends back out of previously made plans, I act as if it doesn't
matter to me, even though I am angry.
(na) 85. If a friend drops in while I'm studying, I'll talk to that friend even though I
prefer to study.
(ag) 86. I throw things at m y r o o m m a t e when I a m mad.
Assertive Behavior Inventory 63

REFERENCES

Alberti, R. E., and Emmons, M. Your perfect right (lst ed.). San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Impact,
1970.
Alberti, R. E., and Emmons, M. Your perfect right (2nd ed.). San Luis Obispo, Calif.:
Impact, 1977.
Buss, A., and Durkee, A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 343-349.
Callner, D. A., and Ross, S. M. The reliability and validity of three measures of assertion in
a drug addict population. Behavior Therapy, 1976, 7, 659-667.
DeGiovanni, I. S. Development and validation of an assertiveness scale for couples (Doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1978. Dissertation Abstracts
International 1979, 39(9-B), 4573.
Frederiksen, L., Jenkens, J., Foy, D. W., and Eisler, R. M. Social skills training to modify
abusive verbal outbursts in adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976,
9, 117-125.
Galassi, J. P., DeLo, J. S., Galassi, M. D., and Bastien, S. The college self-expression scale:
A measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 165-171.
Galassi, M. D., and Galassi, J. P. Assertion: A critical review. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research and Practice, 1978, 15(1), 16-29.
Gambrill, E., and Richey, C. An assertive inventory for use in assessment of research.
Behavior Therapy, 1975: 6, 550-561.
Hollandsworth, J. G., Galassi, J. P., and Gay, M. The adult self-expression scale: Validation
by the multitrait-multimethod procedure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33,
407-415.
Jakubowski-Spector, P. Facilitating the growth of women through assertiveness training.
The Counseling Psychologist, 1973, 4, 75-86.
Lazarus, A. On assertive behavior: A brief note. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 697-699.
Nichols, R. C. MAPS: A multiple analysis program system for behavioral science research.
New York: Behavioral Research Assoc., 1974.