Interpersonal influence and coping strategies

Person. ii&id. O# Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 357-361, 1994 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevicr Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0191-8869/94 $6.00 + 0.00

Pergamon

Interpersonal

influence and coping strategies

ADRIAN FURNHAM* Department

of Psychology,

University

and

RICHARD RAWLES

College London, Gower Street, London WClE

6BT, England

(Received 8 March 1993) Summary-This study examined the relationship between two types of nontrait measures: interpersonal (assertive) style and coping strategies. In all 207 young people completed two multidimensional questionnaires of each construct. The psychometric properties of both questionnaires were investigated (alpha coefficient reliability and factor structure). Both questionnaires showed psychometric weaknesses but scores were compared to examine some of the major hypotheses. There were few sex or age correlates. The assertive interpersonal influence. behaviour pattern was positively correlated with and the passive style negatively correlated with adaptive cognitive and social support coping strategies. Both aggressive hostile and manipulative influence behaviour patterns were associated with repressive coping styles. Although correlations are in accordance with theoretical predictions, results may in part be due to the effects of social desirability.

In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s the trait concept came under renewed fire (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Argyle, Fumham & Graham, 1981; Kendrick & Funder, 1988). Situationists, interactionists and more recently constructionists all questioned the validity of the concept of personality traits particularly the stability of traits and the (causal) relationship between traits and social/cognitive behaviour. Despite the attack on the trait concept apologists have by-and-large successfully defended trait psychology with research on personality traits (and individual differences) showing something of a renaissance judging by new journals in the field. More traditional theorists in clinical, personality, and social psychology have, however, concentrated on stable individual differences akin to traits, in that they are supposedly relatively stable social behaviours. However, these individual differences are not usually conceived as traits, predispositions or biologically based dimensions of human behaviour but rather learnt behavioural styles which are less consistent, across situations and stable over time but more easily changed through counselling, training or therapy. This paper concerns two such concepts; the one arising out of the social skill/assertiveness area of research and the other arising from clinical and occupational studies on stress. Tht literature on assertiveness and social skills is voluminous both in the academic (Rich & Schroeder, 1976) and the popular areas (Bower & Bower, 1976). The development of assessment methods has also flourished. Assertiveness has traditionally been measured in either of two ways: behavioural role-playing tests or self-report questionnaires. Among the latter there are a number of scales devised to measure assertiveness in college populations (Bakker, Bakker-Rabdau & Breit, 1978; Bates & Zimmerman, 1971; Bryant & Trower, 1974; Galassi & Galassi, 1974; Glaser, 1983; Rathus, 1973), and three devised to investigate assertiveness among psychiatric populations (Goldsmith & McFall, 1975; Lazarus, 1971; Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966). In some instances limited psychometric data are presented with these measures (Fumham & Henderson, 1981). The more recent literature draws distinction between “assertiveness” and “social skills training”. In essence, the former refers to a person’s ability to say no to unreasonable requests, to ask for favours, and to express appropriate negative and positive feelings. Social skills incorporates each of the foregoing, but adds the dimensions of style so that people learn these interpersonal skills in the context of appropriate affect and various nonverbal signals. One of the main problems in devising an assertiveness questionnaire is that the concept and definition of assertiveness is by no means clear (Rich & Schroeder, 1976). A frequent distinction is made between aggression, assertion and passivity. Glaser (1983) argued that there may be four possible reactions to a situation requiring an assertiveness model. One set is related to an individual’s openness or candor (individual’s willingness to disclose to another thoughts, feelings, past experience, reactions). Some people disclose very little, while others reveal a moderate amount of information about themselves. Still others speak their thoughts and feelings directly and fully. The second set of behaviours is related to an individual’s consideration for another or others (individual’s willingness to accord others the same rights as accorded self). Some people have little respect for the opinions, feelings, and reactions of others, while still others defend and attempt to preserve the rights of others as strongly as they do their own. Gambrill (1977) has also described two major aspects of assertiveness: firstly, whether assertive behaviour is positive (i.e. the expression of positive feelings such as complimenting others, expressing, affection, etc) or negative (i.e. expressing annoyance or irritation) and secondly, whether the behaviour is initiated by the individual (as in beginning a conversation with a stranger) or is a response of the behaviour of another (e.g. participating in a conversation begun by another individual). The division appears to be useful for programs in assertiveness training, since different responses and behaviour skills presumably are required for each area. Further, ability in one response category may not generalize to another, for example, the person who is easily able to compliment a friend but cannot say no to an unreasonable request. Smye and Wine (1980) found that, although there were no over-all sex differences on assertiveness, women tended to lack skills to deal with negative behaviour and men tended to have difficulty with positive behaviour. *To whom

reprint

requests

should

be addressed. 357

358

NOTFS AND

SHORTER

COMMUNlCATlONS

Assessment methods could incorporate this distinction between categories of assertive behaviour. Most scales and inventories have emphasized negative assertion (as in the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Inventory and the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule), whereas others, such as the Galassi Self-expression Scales, tend to include a large number of items related to positive assertion. While these scales purport to assess the global concept of assertiveness, the types of assertive responses measured are likely to differ. Although factor analytic studies exist (Galassi & Galassi, 1979; Henderson & Furnham, 1983), few content analyses of the popular assertiveness inventories appear to have been done to determine what sorts of questions each is asking and which aspect of assertiveness they are measuring. Furnham and Henderson (1984) did a correlational content analysis of five well used assertiveness inventories and found four quite distinct categories of assertiveness. Hence they recommend the use of multidimensional assertiveness scales. Also there has been a debate as to the basic dimensions of coping. One distinction made by Folkman and Lazarus (1980) has been between problem-focused coping (aimed at problem solving or doing something to alter the source of stress) and emotion-focused coping (aimed at reducing or managing the emotional distress that is associated with (or cued by) a particular situation. Others have pointed out that this distinction is too simple. Carver, Scheier and Weintraub (1989) have distinguished within both types of coping: that some emotionally focused responses involve denial, others involve positive reinterpretation of events, and still others involve the seeking out of social support. Similarly problem-focused coping can potentially involve several distinct activities such as planning, taking direct action to seek assistance, screening out particular activities, and sometimes stopping acting for an extended period. Hence researchers have concentrated on multidimensional instruments in measuring coping (Endler & Parker, 1990). Many studies have shown how coping style and behaviours mediate between various psychologicahvariables. Parker and Brown (1982), using a 6 dimensional coping questionnaire, reported that some coping behaviours reduced and others exacerbated the relations between life events and depression. Similarly, Patterson and McCubbin (1987) noted how 12 different coping strategies in adolescents were clearly related to substance use and abuse. This study was concerned with the relationship between assertive and relative interpersonal styles and coping strategy among young people. It was predicted that assertiveness as opposed to passivity or aggressiveness would be significantly positively correlated with positive coping strategies like seeking social support, planning, active coping and positive reinterpretation and growth. METHOD

Subjects In all, 207 Ss being 19.4. All procedure. They final year. None

took part in this study. Of these, 90 were male and 117 female. Ages ranged from 17 to 23 years, the mean Ss were prospective undergraduates of the university who took part in an afternoon familiarization were drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds although the majority (about 65%) were scholars in their had any formal training in psychology.

Ss completed two questionnaires: The Interpersonal In@ence Inventory (Glaser, 1983) is a 40-item questionnaire designed to measure assertive behaviour. The ‘model’ upon which the inventory is based assesses people on two dimensions, the individual openness or candor (disclosure) and the individual’s consideration for others (respect). Four subscale scores measure hostile aggressive, manipulative aggressive, passive and assertive behaviour. Although the test is used extensively for training, it has not attracted a great deal of psychometric assessment. The Ways oJCoping Scale by Carver et al. (1989) is a 14-dimension, 60-item inventory validated on 978 undergraduates. The questionnaire has a clear factor structure with 14 factors of acceptable internal reliability. The coping strategies correlated with several theoretically relevant personality measures which provided some evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Procedure Ss completed the questionnaire while taking part in another study which required them to wait for 30 min. All Ss were volunteers. In all 12 questionnaires were spoiled though a number were not fully completed due to time constraints. Ss were debriefed after the study. Table

I. Means, standard

Interpersonal Influence I. Assertive

deviations

and alphas’s for the two measures B

SD

24.32 20.61 16.87 20.93

4.26

12.22 I I .48 12.58 II.34 Il.85 9.59

OL

Inventory

2. Passive 3. Aggressive Manipulative 4. Aggressive Hostile Coping style I. Positive Reinterpretation and growth 2. Active Coping 3. Planning 4. Seeking Social Support for Emotion 5. Seeking Social Support for Instruments 6. Suppression of Competing Actiwties 7. Religion 8. Acceptance 9. Mental Disengagement IO. Focus on/Venting Emotion I I. Behavioural Disengagement 12. Denial 13. Restraint Coping 14. Alcohol Use 15. Humour

6.54

II.88 9.00 IO.14 6.1 I 9.01 9.82 5.65 9.30

6.36

0.61 0.71 0.76

5.60

0.66

2.3 1 2.03 2.33 3.31 2.63 2.1 I 3.51 2.35 I.91 3.01 2.15 1.87 2.07 2.84 3.48

0.76

5.69

0.70 0.82 0.90 0.81 0.67 0.93 0.68 0.42 0.85 0.68 0.41 0.6 I 0.95 0.50

Manipulation Hostile

Influence Inventory

‘P

<

0.05; l*P < 0.001.

I. Positive Reinterpretation and growth 2. Active Coping 3. Planning 4. Seeking Social Support for Emotion 5. Seeking Social Support for Instruments 6. Suppression of Competing Activities I. Religion 8. Acceptance 9. Mental Disengagement IO. Focus on/Venting Emotion I I EJehaviour Disengagement 12. Denial 13. Restraint Coping 14. Alcohol Use 15. Humour

1. Assertive 2. Passive 3. Aggressive 4. Aggressive Coping style

Interpersonal

0.56” 0.19 0.37. 0.23 0.00 0.19 -0.16 0.04 0.23’ 0.14 0.15 -0.26’ -0.18

0.20 0.20 0.13 0.06 0.28. 0.04 0.07 -0.19 0.21 0.22 -0.08 -0.10

2

0.41;’ 0.46**

I

0.40” 0.00 0.17 -0.03 0.09 -0.30’1 0.26** 0.17 -0.09 0.07

0.28’

0.21

3

correlations

0.09 -0.03 0.00 -0.09 0.28.’ -0.12 0.11 0.07 -0.09 -0.01

-0.02 0.51.. -0.12 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01

5

0.09 0.26” -0.05 0.30” 0.15 -0.17 -0.03

0.05 -0.10

6

0.09 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.24 -0.13 -0.42**

-0.11

0.23” -0.18 7

Passive

0.09 -0.10 0.00 -0.06 0.06 -0.02 0.24’

8

between the subscales of both questionnaires

0.11 -0.01 0.00

0.69”

-0.36** -0.06 -0.29** 4

Assertive

Table 2. Pearson product-moment

0.15 0.11 0.18 0.05 0.19 -0.05

9

0.04 0.00 0.00 0.07 -0.03

10

0.00 0.01 0.28,’ 0.38

0.26” II

0.83 0.01 0.09

I2

Aggressive/Manipulative

-0.14 0.00

13

0.44’

14

8 z

3 g

1

5

NOTES AND

360

Table 3. Partial correlations

SHORTER

COMMUNICATIONS

(with sex and age partialled out) between interpersional cosine stvle Interpersonal

Coping I. 2. 3. 4.

style

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Il. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Positive Reinterpretation and growth Active Coping Planning Seeking Social Support (Emotional Reasons) Seeking Social Support (instrumental Reasons) Suppression of Competing Activities Religion Acceptance Mental Disengagement Focus on/Venting Emotion Behaviour Disengagement Denial Restraint Coping Alcohol/Drug Use Humour

‘P

<

5.

influence behaviours

influence behaviour Aggressive Manipulation

Aggressive Hostile

Assertive

Passive

0.26’ 0.31* 0.25’ 0.30’

0.00 -0.25. -0.12 -0.21*

0.02 0.0 1 0.11 -0.15

0.06 0.14 0.10 0.16*

0.32’

-0.18’

0.05

0.17

0.05 -0.06 0.26. -0.05 0.12 -0.21. -0.11 -0.10 -0.10 -0.04

-0.08 0.03 -0.04 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.05

0.16* 0.16 -0.06 0.13 -0.03 0.07 0.28*

0.30* 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.18* 0.08 0.04

0.09 0.14 0.08

and

-0.22’ 0.00 0.16’

0.08 -0.00 0.21’

0.05, n = 207.

RESULTS

The means of the four Interpersonal Influence Inventory responses (determined on 151 American first level managers) were all within the average range. Also the means of the COPE were similar to those of a large American student sample (N = 1030) though both denial and alcohol use was somewhat higher and religion somewhat lower than the American norms. The alpha coefficients shown in Table 1 indicated that the COPE (with three notable exceptions) had higher satisfactory alpha’s than the Interpersonal Influence Inventory. One possible explanation for the average-to-low alphas of the Interpersonal Influence Inventory is that it may be culture-specific (i.e. to America). That is there is some evidence of lack of item equivalence. The alphas on the COPE are remarkably similar to that of Carver er al. (1989): especially Turning to Religion: Carver et al. a = 0.92, this study a = 0.93; Planning: Carver et al. a + 0.80; this study a = 0.81. However three coping scale alphas seemed unacceptably low: Mental Disengagement (a = 0.42). Denial (a = 0.41) and Humour (a = 0.50) which may threaten the validity of these items. The intercorrelations between the two measures are shown in Table 2. Predictably, assertiveness scores were correlated with both passivity and aggressive hostility. The pattern of intercorrelations indicated that the five coping strategies were all fairly strongly positively correlated and concerned mainly cognitive and support strategies. A second group, only loosely correlated refer to suppressive styles, and the third to denial, restraint and alcohol use. There were fewer than expected by chance age or sex differences on all the dependent measures. Table 3 shows partial correlations (sex and age, partialled out), just 7 of the correlations between assertiveness and coping were significant. The more assertive the person the more cognitive (Planning, reinterpretation) and social support coping strategies are used and the less he or she behaviourally disengaged. The opposite pattern seemed to apply to the passive interpersonal style, though only three reached significance. The aggressive manipulative interpersonal style was correlated positively with denial, suppression of competing activities, religion but not restraint coping. This is to be expected with the description of this style as “neither candid about one’s motives nor considerate of other people’s rights”. The aggressive hostile score was correlated with seeking social support, humour, venting emotions (presumably against others) but most of all suppressing one’s attention to other activities to concentrate more completely on dealing with the stresses. It should be pointed out that only two of the coping styles did not correlate significantly with any of the interpersonal styles: mental disengagement and alcohol/drug use.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study support the overall thesis that interpersonal influence styles, notably assertiveness, were related to a person’s strategies. Specifically ‘healthy’ adaptive influence styles-namely assertiveness-were positively correlated with successful problem-focused coping. Equally less adaptive styles like being passive are characterized by little problem-focused coping while aggressive interpersonal styles are associated with emotion-focused coping strategies. The most interesting question arising from these results is the precise relationship between the two major variables examined namely interpersonal influence and coping. One possible explanation is that these results are an artifact of a social desirability effect. That is, astute Ss noting the face validity of both questionnaires, might simply ‘fake’ the most desirable responses (Furnham, 1990). Because both assertiveness and problem-focused coping are widely recognized as more desirable than passive/aggressive interpersonal styles or emotionally-focused or denying coping strategies Ss might ‘check-off these responses thence their positive intercorrelation. Whilst this possibility cannot be discounted, the fact that the means and standard deviations for both these questionnaires were strictly in the normal range suggests that if faking occurred it was not very prevalent. On the other hand it may be that a particular level of social skill prescribes both adaptive interpersonal influence and coping styles. That is without the skills required to be assertive a person may not be able to call upon social support coping strategies. In this sense, general social skill may be seen as the mediating concept between the two variables. However it is not the only concept that could be entertained. For instance personality variables like neuroticism may be invoked to explain these results: neurotics whose influence style is either passive or aggressive have maladaptive coping styles which

NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNlCATlONS

maintain their neurosis. The major difference stability and aetiology of the concept.

between

the social vs personality

361 mediating

variable

explanation

lies in the

REFERENCES Argyle, M., Fumham, A. & Graham, J. (1981). Social situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bakker, C., Bakker-Rabdau, M. & Breit, S. (1978). The measurement of assertiveness and aggressiveness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 277-284. Bates, H. & Zimmerman, S. (1971). Towards the development of a screening scale for assertive training. Psychological Reports, 28, 99-107. Bower, S. & Bower, G. (1976). Asserting yourself Menlo Park, CA: Addisson-Wesley. Bryant, B. & Trower, P. (1974). Social difficulty in a student sample. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 44, 13-21. Carver, C., Scheier, M. % Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283. Endler, N. & Magnusson, D. (Eds) (1976). Inreraclional psychology and personality. New York: Wiley. Endler, N. % Parker, J. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844854. Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 21, 219-239. Furnham, A. (1990). The fake-ability of the 16PF, Myers-Briggs and Firo-B personality measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 711-716. Furnham, A. & Henderson, M. (1981). Sex differences in self-reported assertiveness among British adults. Brifish Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 227-238. Furnham, A. & Henderson, M. (1984). Assessing assertiveness: content and correlational analysis of five assertiveness inventors. Behavioral Assessmenr, 6, 79-88. Galassi, J. & Galassi, M. (1974). Validity of a measure of assertiveness. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 21, 248-250. Galassi, J. & Galassi, M. (1979). A comparison of the factor structure of an assertion scale across sex and population. Behavior Therapy, 10, 117-128. Gambrill, E. (1977). Behavior modification: handbook of assessment, intervenfion and evaluation. San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass. Glaser, R. (1983). The Interpersonal fntuences Invenfory. Bryn Mawr: Organisational Design and Development. Goldsmith, J. & McFall, R. (1975). Development and evaluation of interpersonal skill training programme for psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 51-58. Henderson, M. & Fumham, A. (1983). The dimensions of assertiveness. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 14, 223-23 1. Kendrick, D. & Funder, D. (1988). Profiting from controverting: lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34. Lazarus, A. (1971). Behavior therapy and beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parker, G. & Brown, L. (1982). Coping behaviors that mediate between life events and depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1386-l 392. Patterson, J. & McCubbin, H. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, IO, 1633186. Rathus, S. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behuvior Therapy, 4, 398-406. Rich, A. & Shroeder, H. (1976). Research issues in assertiveness training. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1083-1096. Smye, M. & Wine, J. (1980). A comparison of female and male adolescents’ social behavior and cognition. Sex Roles, 6, 213-230. Wolpe, J. & Lazarus, A. (1966). Behavior rherapy techniques: a guide to the treatment of neurosis. New York: Pergamon.