- Email: [email protected]
The influence of race in the social evaluation of assertion in conflict situations
BEHAVIORTHERAPY16, 478--493 (1985)
The Influence of Race in the Social Evaluation of Assertion in Conflict Situations STEPHEN HROP RICHARD F. RAKOS Cleveland State University
In two separate experiments, black and white college students evaluated standard and empathic assertion emitted in black-to-white, black-to-black, white-towhite, and white-to-black conflict interactions. Overall, both black and white subjects perceived empathic assertion to be more socially desirable than standard assertion, but their judgments were affected by the race of the participants. Whites evaluated empathic assertion more favorably than standard assertion when the asserter was white, hut made no such distinction when he was black. Blacks perceived empathic assertion to a black to be more positive than standard assertion when the asserter was black, but reversed their judgment of the two styles when the asserter was white. Both blacks and whites evidenced discomfort with assertion by individuals of the other race. The clinical implications of these findings and suggestions for further research are discussed.
Research concerned with identifying the overt response c o m p o n e n t s of " a p p r o p r i a t e " a s s e r t i o n i n conflict s i t u a t i o n s h a s f o c u s e d o n t h e social consequences of the interaction. Standard assertion has been c o m p a r e d to a l t e r n a t i v e s s u c h as n o n a s s e r t i o n , aggression, p a s s i v e - a g g r e s s i o n , a n d e m p a t h i c a s s e r t i o n , w h i c h , i n a d d i t i o n to t h e d i r e c t a s s e r t i o n , i n c l u d e s o n e o r m o r e o f the following: b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n , s h o r t apology, s e e k i n g a c o m p r o m i s e , e m p a t h y s t a t e m e n t (e.g., R a k o s & H r o p , 1983). T h e evid e n c e s t r o n g l y suggests t h a t e m p a t h i c a s s e r t i o n i n conflict s i t u a t i o n s is j u d g e d m o r e f a v o r a b l y b y college s t u d e n t s t h a n the t y p i c a l s t a n d a r d assertion, w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g c o m p a r a b l e effectiveness i n a c h i e v i n g the de-
This research was conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author in partial fulfillment of the M.A. degree requirements at Cleveland State University. Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Philadelphia, November, 1984. Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard F. Rakos, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115. 478 0005-7894/85/0478-049351.00/0 Copyright 1985 by Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
RACE A N D ASSERTION
479
sired interpersonal goal (Kern, 1982; Kern, Cavell, & Beck, 1985; Rakos & Hrop, 1983; Woolfolk & Dever, 1979). Empathic assertion has, therefore, emerged as a preferred training goal. However, it is unclear to what extent these research findings can be generalized to persons who, for racial or cultural reasons, diverge from white, middle-class attitudes and values presumably held by the majority of research subjects. In fact, several writers have directly questioned the appropriateness of applying current assertiveness training procedures with blacks (CaldweU-Colbert & Jenkins, 1982; Cheek, 1976; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983; Minor, 1978)due to presumed or observed behavioral and normative differences between black and white interpersonal communication styles. Perhaps in response to such concerns, several recent studies have investigated various aspects of standard assertion involving blacks. With college students as subjects, it has been found that: interracial assertions by both blacks and whites tend to be more aggressive than intraracial ones (Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983); the verbal and nonverbal characteristics of black and white assertion are similar in role plays (Lineberger & Beezley, 1980), but, in written assessments, blacks make extensive use of black English vernacular in intraracial interactions (Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983); there are no differences between blacks and whites in knowledge of appropriate assertive behavior (Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983); blacks evaluate standard assertion involving two blacks as more competent but less likeable than nonassertion (Keane, St. Lawrence, Himadi, Graves, & Kelly, 1983), a finding which is consistent with the general social-evaluative assertiveness research (e.g., Kern, 1982); and black assertion, compared to nonassertion, is considered by white observers to be comparable to white assertion in terms of perceived effectiveness and skillfulness (Kelly, St. Lawrence, Bradlyn, Himadi, Graves, & Keane, 1982). Finally, studies using diverse subjects have determined that the impact of the assertive message is partly a function of the race of the speaker (Feldman & Donahue, 1978; Katz, Cohen, & Glass, 1975; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983; Turner, Beidel, Hersen, & Bellack, 1984), the judge (Turner et al., 1984), or both (Turner et al., 1984). This previous research has been limited in two important respects. First, despite findings suggesting important differences between intra- and interracial interactions, no study has assessed the social evaluation of assertion as a function of the race of all three participants: judge, asserter, assertee. Second, the superior social evaluation of empathic assertion, as compared to standard assertion, has not been confirmed in the context of the race of the three participants. The present study was designed to provide these more refined data by having white and black subjects evaluate videotapes depicting standard and empathic refusal assertions involving black-white, black-black, white-white, and white-black participants. The following predictions were advanced: (1) overall (disregarding the racial composition of the observed dyad), standard assertion would be evaluated less positively than empathic assertion by both black and white subjects; and (2) the evaluation of each style of assertion was ex-
480
H R O P A N D RAKOS
pected to be more favorable when the race o f the judge and asserter were the same, and furthermore, (2a) that this effect would be most pronounced for interracial interactions. Such a systematic examination of all possible combinations o f race of asserter, assertee, and judge across the two styles o f assertion will help clarify the constitution of "appropriate" assertion in both intra- and interracial social contexts. GENERAL METHOD Two experiments, one with white subjects and one with black subjects, were conducted. The experiments utilized the same factorial design (2 [assertive content] x 2 [race of asserter] x 2 [race o f assertee]), general procedures, and data analyses (multivariate analyses of variance [MANOVAs], discriminant function analyses, and Newman-Keuls tests, as appropriate).
Stimulus Materials In both experiments, subjects viewed two brief videotaped interactions in which a black or white male stimulus model refused the request of a black or white male recipient in a standard assertive manner or an empathic assertive manner. The two situations portrayed in the videotapes depicted social scenarios familiar to most students at the two urban, public universities which provided the subjects. One of the scenes consisted of the following narrative and model dialogue: Narrator: "Greg and a co-worker are mail clerks at the post office. Greg works the day shift while the other clerk works evenings. On several occasions in the past the other clerk has asked Greg if he would swap work shifts for the day because this other clerk wanted to visit a friend during the evening. Greg did this favor on previous occasions when he was asked, but really doesn't like the inconvenience o f changinghis own schedule around. For this reason, Greg decides that he will have to turn down this request in the future. A few days after making this decision, Greg was approached by the other clerk in the locker room between the change o f shifts." Clerk: " H e y Greg, a friend o f mine has invited me over to watch a movie on Monday evening. Would you mind trading work shifts with me on that day?" Standard assertion response: "'No, I'm sorry, but I'd really prefer not to work any more evening shifts." Empathic assertion response: "No, I'm sorry, but I'd really prefer not to work any more evening shifts because there are things I need to do at that time o f day. I realize you're probably disappointed and inconvenienced; perhaps in a few months I'll be able to help you out.'" The other stimulus scene portrayed two students "'at a large university" and involved the refusal o f a request for a ride home after class. The construction o f the assertive responses was guided by previous research and theorizing. The standard assertion refusal statements were similar to
RACE A N D ASSERTION
481
three responses previously judged to be "assertive" by six researchers p r o m i n e n t in assertiveness research) T h e empathic assertion responses, based on a conceptualization by Rakos (1979), included a b r i e f explanation, e m p a t h y statement, and possible c o m p r o m i s e in addition to the refusal o f the request. The nonverbal and paralinguistic c o m p o n e n t s o f b o t h styles o f responding were consistent with the response topographies identified as socially appropriate in previous research (McFall, Winnett, Bordewick, & Bornstein, 1982; Rose & Tryon, 1979). Four male college s t u d e n t s - - t w o blacks and two whites--served as stimulus models. Scenes were videotaped in color to highlight model race. T h e models rehearsed the scenes together under the direction o f the experimenters until their verbal and nonverbal behaviors were consistent and uniform (see validation o f stimulus videotapes below). F o u r asserters (two black and two white), two assertees (one black and one white), and two types o f content (standard assertion and empathic assertion) for each o f the two scenes resulted in a total o f 32 v i d e o t a p e d interactions.
Validation of Stimulus Videotapes All videotapes were independently rated by two trained white psychology students (one graduate, one undergraduate) on measures o f the asserter's voice loudness and tone, facial expression, empathy, flexibility, and verbal content. Ratings were m a d e on the following continua: voice loudness, 1 = very soft to 5 = very loud; facial expression and tone o f voice, 1 = appropriate to 5 = inappropriate; empathy, 1 = very empathetic to 5 = very nonempathetic; flexibility, 1 = very flexible to 5 = very inflexible. Finally, verbal content was classified d i c h o t o m o u s l y as Assertion I (standard assertion) or Assertion II (empathic assertion). Interrater reliabilities, d e t e r m i n e d by interclass correlations (Guilford & Fruchter, 1978, p. 270) a m o n g the 32 videotaped scenes, were: voice loudness, r = .99; facial expression, r = 1.00; tone o f voice, r = .96; empathy, r = .88; flexibility, r = 1.00; and verbal content, r = 1.00. MannWhitney U tests revealed the following additional results: all asserterassertee dyad comparisons within content type (i.e., all scenes depicting either standard assertion or empathic assertion, regardless o f the racial composition o f the observed dyad) yielded nonsignificant differences on all six validation measures. T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f identical asserter-assertee dyads between content type (i.e., a specific racial dyad demonstrating standard assertion c o m p a r e d with the same dyad demonstrating empathic assertion) yielded nonsignificant differences on measures o f voice loudness, tone, and facial expression, but significant differences for empathy, flexibility, and content (all p < .05). Thus, the analyses confirmed both the desired manipulation o f the verbal content and the consistency o f paralinguistic and nonverbal components, regardless o f the verbal content or racial composition o f the stimulus dyad. On the continuum 1 = nonassertive, 5 = assertive, 9 = aggressive, the mean rating was 4.9 with a range of 4.5-5.0 (Rakos & Hrop, 1983).
482
HROP AND RAKOS
TABLE 1 ADJECTIVERATINGSCALE:DISCRIMINANTANALYSISOF THE CONTENTEFFECT(WroTE JUDGES) Means Variable ~
S
E
Friendly-unfriendly Aggressive-unaggressive Sympathetic-unsympathetic Assertive-unassertive Dominant-submissive Appropriate-inappropriate Fair-unfair Flexible-inflexible Kind-unkind Intelligent-unintelligent Socially skilled-socially unskilled Pleasant-unpleasant
3.2 3.8 4.3 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.1 4.4 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.3
2.6 3.6 3.0 2.3 2.8 2.0 1.9 3.6 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.8
Univariate F2 7.25"* 1.23 30.70** 4.49* 1.47 5.41 * 4.00* 12.60** 9.48** 6.03"* 5.82** 5.38"
Discriminant loadings .42 .17 .86 .33 .18 .36 .31 .55 .48 .38 .37 .36
s = standard assertion; E = empathic assertion. t Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., fair = 1; unfair = 7). ~1, 136 df. *p < .05; **p < .01.
Dependent Measures A f t e r v i e w i n g each scene, subjects c o m p l e t e d a n adjective rating scale c o n t a i n i n g twelve 7 - p o i n t b i p o l a r s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e adjectives utilized in p r e v i o u s assertiveness research (Hull & Schroeder, 1979; R a k o s & H r o p , 1983). T h e s e i t e m s are listed in T a b l e 1. A personal impressions questionnaire, p r e s e n t e d after both scenes were viewed, assessed subjects' personal feelings t o w a r d s the asserter as well as their p e r c e p t i o n o f h o w the assertee experienced the i n t e r a c t i o n (see T a b l e 2). A n a d d i t i o n a l i t e m asked subjects to circle the o n e w o r d - - n o n a s s e r t i v e , assertive, o r aggress i v e - t h a t best c h a r a c t e r i z e d the asserter. Finally, a semantic rating scale, consisting o f 11 b i p o l a r i t e m s t h a t m e a s u r e d the p o t e n c y , evaluative, a n d activity d i m e n s i o n s o f the asserter's refusal r e s p o n s e (see T a b l e 3) was also a d m i n i s t e r e d after both scenes were viewed.
EXPERIMENT 1 Method Subjects Subjects consisted o f 144 white u n d e r g r a d u a t e students ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 55% male, 45% female) recruited f r o m i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y classes at a large, u r b a n , p r e d o m i n a t e l y white state university. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e p a r t m e n t a l research was a course r e q u i r e m e n t for these students. N o racial restrictions were identified in the p o s t e d r e c r u i t m e n t notices, necessitating the deletion o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f r o m a small n u m b e r o f black
RACE A N D ASSERTION
483
students. T h e 16 e x p e r i m e n t a l cells (4 asserters, 2 assertees, 2 assertive content) each contained 9 subjects after r a n d o m l y discarding responses f r o m several white students to attain an equal n u m b e r o f subjects in each cell.
Procedure T h e e x p e r i m e n t was described as an investigation o f "'styles o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , " in which subjects would be completing " p e r s o n a l i t y evalu a t i o n s " b a s e d on two v i d e o t a p e d interactions. F o r each scene, the exp e r i m e n t e r first described the b a c k g r o u n d circumstances relevant to the situation a n d then presented the v i d e o t a p e d interaction. After c o m p l e t i n g all rating scales, subjects were thoroughly debriefed.
Results P r e l i m i n a r y M A N O V A s revealed no significant differences between the two black asserters n o r between the two white asserters, allowing these intraracial variables to be collapsed for all subsequent analyses. H o w e v e r , the p r e l i m i n a r y M A N O V A for the scene variable was significant: F(12, 275) = 3.22, p < .001. A d i s c r i m i n a n t analysis 2 o f the scene effect indicated that the asserter in scene 1 (school scene) was evaluated as m o r e fair but less pleasant and friendly t h a n the asserter in scene 2 (post office scene). W h e n the scenes were analyzed separately, the d i s c r i m i n a n t loadings indicated that e m p a t h i c assertion was seen as m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c a n d flexible than standard assertion in b o t h scenes. This finding suggested that a collapse across the two scenes would n o t significantly affect interpretation o f the findings. Therefore, the scene variable was deleted for all subsequent analyses.
Main Effect: Assertive Content T w o o f the three rating scales yielded a significant m a i n effect for content: the adjective rating scale, F(12, 125) = 3.13, p < .001 (see T a b l e 1), a n d personal i m p r e s s i o n s questionnaire, F(10, 127) --- 3.49, p < .001 (see T a b l e 2). T h e d i s c r i m i n a n t function analyses o f the content effects indicated that e m p a t h i c assertion was seen as m o r e sympathetic, flexible, kind, and friendly than standard assertion. Additionally, subjects perceived the recipient (assertee) to feel m o r e valued a n d respected when the asserter engaged in e m p a t h i c assertion as o p p o s e d to standard assertion. Discriminant loadings were used to interpret all significant results of the multivariate analyses. Also referred to as structure correlations, they can be interpreted like factor loadhags. Generally, any dependent variable exhibiting a loading of .30 or greater (absolute value) is considered significant (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Grablowsky, 1979). Since a large number of questionnaire items were involved, we believed that confidence in the theoretical and clinical utility of the findings would be enhanced if conservative criteria for statistical significance were adopted. Therefore, only those items that exhibited a loading of .40 (absolute value) or greater and achieved a univariate significance ofp < .05 were considered statistically significant. The lone exception to this criterion occurs in Table 2, where the only item loading on the significant overall MANOVA had a value of -.35.
484
HROP A N D RAKOS
I.u
>,
< F, Z <
(Y o
il b~ .~ .~
<
o ,v o-. ¢.~.
~oo .~. ~
o
o~
~
~
~
o
~
RACE A N D ASSERTION
485
The final item on the personal impressions questionnaire--which asked subjects to characterize the asserter as nonassertive, assertive, or aggressive-resulted in nonsignificant findings based on a chi-square analysis. Main Effect: Race of Asserter The MANOVA yielded a significant main effect for race of asserter on the personal impressions questionnaire: F(10, 127) = 2.89, p < .003 (see Table 2). A discriminant function analysis indicated that subjects perceived the recipient to feel most inferior when the asserter was black. The other two questionnaires failed to achieve significant differences. Interaction: Assertive Content x Race of Asserter Only the semantic rating scale evidenced a significant content x asserter interaction: F(11, 126) = 2.27, p < .01 (see Table 3). The discriminant function analysis indicated that the brave-cowardly and the attractingrepelling items loaded significantly on the observed interaction. NewmanKeuls comparisons of means indicated that the white asserter engaging in empathic assertion was seen as less brave and more attracting than the white asserter engaging in standard assertion or than the black asserter engaging in either. The other main and interaction effects were nonsignificant.
Discussion White college students evaluated the asserter as being more sympathetic, flexible, kind, and friendly when he responded with empathic assertion compared to standard assertion. Furthermore, the assertee was perceived to feel most valued and respected when he was addressed in an empathic assertive manner. These findings, which support prediction 1, are essentially a replication of the results found by Rakos and Hrop (1983) and are consistent with the results of Kern (1982), Kern et al. (1985), and Woolfolk and Dever (1979). They also provide additional support for conceptualizations of empathic assertion that emphasize expressing concern for the other person's feelings (i.e., sympathetic) and seeking a mutually acceptable compromise when legitimate rights conflict (i.e., flexibility) (cf. Rakos, 1979). Racial variables proved important, though not necessarily in the predicted direction, in the evaluations by white observers. White asserters were evaluated more favorably when they emitted an empathic assertion compared to a standard assertion, but black asserters did not receive a similar differential judgment. Thus, the evaluation of black asserters by white observers may be more influenced by race than by specific assertive content. This finding only partially supports prediction 2 (empathic, but not standard, assertion was evaluated more favorably when race of judge and asserter were the same). Whites appear to be uncomfortable with assertion by blacks, even when such behavior includes the empathy components perceived to be socially appropriate in general. The finding that whites perceived the assertee (whether white or black) to feel most inferior
486
HROP AND RAKOS
TABLE 3 SEMANTIC RATING SCALE."D1SCRIMINANT ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT x ASSERTER
EFFECt
(WroTE JUDGES) Means 2 Variable~
BS
WS
BE
WE
Quarrelsome-congenial Weak-strong Brave-cowardly Severe-lenient Active-passive Aggravating-soothing Tough-fragile Cruel-kind Unselfish-selfish Masculine-feminine Attracting-repelling
4.9 5.4 2.5 b 3.1 3.1 4.1 3.6 4.9 3.4 2.7 4.1 ~
4.8 5.1 2.4b 3.4 3.4 4.0 3.3 4.5 3.9 2.7 4.1 b
5.2 5.4 2.6 b 2.9 2.9 4.5 3.6 5.4 3.5 2.8 4.1 b
5.4 5.6 3.0a 3.2 3.2 4.2 3.2 4.2 4.2 2.9 3.4a
DiscrimUnivariate inant Fa loadings .29 .87 8.53** .00 .00 .12 .004 .004 1.33 .005 8.37**
-.10 - . 17 .56 .00 .00 .06 .01 .01 .22 .01 .55
BS = black asserter engaging in standard assertion. WS = white asserter engaging in standard assertion. BE = black asserter engaging in empathic assertion. WE = white asserter engaging in empathic assertion. Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., cruel = 1; kind = 7). 2 For significant loadings, mean sharing the s a m e superscript d i d not differ in NewmanKeuls tests. 3 1,136 df. **p < .01.
when the asserter was black, regardless of assertive content, lends further s u p p o r t to t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . A l t h o u g h t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C h e e k ' s (1976) c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t w h i t e s e x p e c t b l a c k s t o b e s u b m i s s i v e o r to h a v e d i f f e r e n t n o r m s for s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , t h e f a i l u r e o f r a c e o f a s s e r t e e t o effect j u d g m e n t s ( p r e d i c t i o n 2a) d o e s not. I f w h i t e s m a i n t a i n , f o r e x ample, expectations of black submissiveness, we would predict that these e x p e c t a t i o n s w o u l d b e m o r e p r o n o u n c e d w h e n t h e a s s e r t e e is w h i t e . O v e r a l l , t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e K e l l y et al. (1982) f i n d i n g that white observers perceived standard assertion by blacks to be more flexible b u t less p l e a s a n t t h a n s t a n d a r d a s s e r t i o n b y w h i t e s . I t s e e m s t h a t w h i t e s m a k e few c l e a r - c u t e v a l u a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n s t a n d a r d ass e r t i o n b y w h i t e s a n d b l a c k s . H o w e v e r , t h e e m p a t h i c a s s e r t i v e style, w h i c h h a s e n h a n c e d t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e a s s e r t e r in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , a n d o f w h i t e a s s e r t e r s i n t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , f a i l e d to p r o v i d e t h e s a m e b e n e f i t s for black asserters. This differential judgment, which may be a manifest a t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e , fear, e r r o n e o u s e x p e c t a t i o n s , o r i g n o r a n c e s u p p o r t s o t h e r r e s e a r c h (e.g., K a t z et al., 1975) w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t a p o t e n t b l a c k i n t e r a c t i v e style c a u s e s d i s c o m f o r t for w h i t e s . A l t h o u g h b l a c k c a n d i d a t e s f o r a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g m a y b e a c u t e l y a w a r e o f t h i s p h e n o m e n o n , it
RACE AND ASSERTION
487
TABLE 4 ADJECTIVE RATING SCALE:DISCRIMINANTANALYSISOF THE CONTENt EFFECr (BLACK JUDGES) Diserim-
Means
Variable ~
S
E
Friendly-unfriendly Aggressive-unag~'-essive Sympathetic-unsympathetic Assertive-unassertive Dominant-submissive Appropriate-inappropriate Fair-unfair Flexible-inflexible Kind-unkind Intelligent-unintelligent Socially skilled-socially unskilled Pleasant-unpleasant
2.4 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.2 2.2 1.9 3.4 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.4
1.9 3.7 2.4 2.8 3.7 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.9
Univariate F2 5.12* .33 22.13** 2.19 3.22 2.54 1.25 7.37** 5.61 ** 4.71 * 6.44** 5.97**
inant loadings - . 17 .15 -.77 -.24 .33 .20 .33 -.03 .00 - . 19 - . 13 - . 12
S = standard assertion; E = empathic assertion. Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., fair = 1; unfair = 7). 21,136dr *p < .05; **p < .01.
m a y surprise white trainers that our results suggest that e m p a t h y c o m p o n e n t s enhance the e v a l u a t i o n by whites o f assertion by whites but not o f assertion b y blacks. EXPERIMENT 2
Method Subjects Subjects were 144 black, c o m m u n i t y college students ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 45% male, 55% female) enrolled in i n t r o d u c t o r y health courses. Experim e n t a l sessions were c o n d u c t e d during regularly scheduled class times. Each o f eight classes consisting o f 2 0 - 2 5 students was d i v i d e d into two equal groups. T h e groups alternated between taking a b r e a k outside the classroom a n d participating in the experiment, except for being present together for the debriefing. T h e responses f r o m the small n u m b e r o f white students were r e m o v e d f r o m the data pool at a later time. T o obtain an equal n u m b e r o f subjects in each cell, data f r o m several black subjects were r a n d o m l y discarded f r o m m o s t o f the groups. T h e final subject pool consisted o f nine subjects in each o f the 16 e x p e r i m e n t a l cells.
Procedure T h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s descriptions a n d procedures were identical to those e m p l o y e d in E x p e r i m e n t 1.
488
HROP AND RAKOS
TABLE 5 SEMANTIC RATING SCALE: DISCRIMINANTANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT EFFECT (BLACK
JUDCES) Means Variable ~ Quarrelsome-congenial Weak-strong Brave -cowardly Severe-lenient Active-passive Aggravating-soothing Tough-fragile Cruel-kind Unselfish-selfish Masculine-feminine Attracting-repelling
S
E
Univariate F2
4.7 5.3 2.3 3.8 3.8 4.5 3.1 5.4 2.5 2.4 3.4
5.3 6.0 2.1 4.7 3.7 5.2 3.9 5.9 2.2 2.3 3.4
4.72" 6.24** .37 7.20** .12 4.84* .06 5.44* 1.35 .16 .01
Discriminant loadings - . 12 -.64 - . 24 - . 55 .12 - . 18 .09 - .46 .06 - .25 - .03
S = standard assertion; E = empathic assertion. Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., weak = 1; strong = 7). :1,136df * p < .05; * * p < .01.
Results Preliminary M A N O V A s o f the two black asserters, the two white asserters, and the two scenes revealed no significant effects. Therefore, these variables were collapsed for all subsequent analyses. M a i n Effect: Assertive Content The M A N O V A yielded a significant main effect for content on the adjective rating scale, F(12, 125) = 2.37, p < .009 (see Table 4), and on the semantic rating scale, F(11, 126) = 1.91, p < .04 (see Table 5). Subsequent discriminant function analyses indicated that empathic assertion was judged to be more sympathetic, stronger, kinder, and more lenient than standard assertion. In addition, on the personal impressions questionnaire, 21 subjects categorized the asserter as "aggressive" when he engaged in standard assertion, while 11 subjects gave the same label to empathic assertion. A chi-square analysis indicated that this difference was significant, X2 (1) = 5.24, p < .05. Interaction: Assertive Content x Race o f Asserter x Race o f Assertee The M A N O V A resulted in a significant content x asserter x assertee interaction on the adjective rating scale: F(12, 125) = 2.12, p < .02 (see Table 6). The discriminant analysis indicated that aggressive-unaggressive and appropriate-inappropriate were the primary contributions to this effect. N e w m a n - K e u l s comparisons o f means indicated that the asserter
RACE AND ASSERTION
489
was perceived to be the least aggressive when he was black and engaged in empathic assertion towards a white assertee. The asserter was, in contrast, perceived to be most aggressive when he was white and engaged in empathic assertion towards a black, though not significantly different from a white engaging in standard assertion to a black. Intermediate, and significantly different from the two extremes, were judgments of a black using standard assertion to a white (see Table 6). Additionally, NewmanKeuls tests indicated that the asserter was considered to be least appropriate when he engaged in standard assertion towards an assertee of his own race (i.e., white-to-white was least appropriate and black-to-black was next). In cross-racial comparisons, standard assertion by a white to a black was judged to be more appropriate than empathic assertion by a white to a black, and both empathic and standard assertion by a black to a white. The latter three interactions were all evaluated similarly (see Table 6). The other main and interaction effects failed to achieve significance.
Discussion The results of Experiment 2 confirmed the first prediction: black college students perceived empathic assertion to be more socially appropriate than standard assertion, while maintaining comparable potency. College blacks, like college whites, demonstrate a sensitivity to the potential negative social consequences of assertion and value the addition of empathy components to the expression of rights (cf. Keane et al., 1983). The racial composition of the interacting dyad (but not race ofasserter-prediction 2) influenced the perception of black judges. Empathic assertion by a white to a black was viewed as appropriate but fairly aggressive, whereas the same behavior emitted by a black to a white was seen as equally appropriate but relatively unaggressive. This partially supports prediction 2a, and is not inconsistent with Lineberger and Calhoun's (1983) finding that blacks tend to be more aggressive in their assertions towards whites than towards other blacks (i.e., black judges observing a black engaging in empathic assertion towards a white might indeed consider such behavior to be relatively unaggressive). In addition, when the assertee was black, both styles of assertion by a white were judged to be fairly aggressive, but the standard version was nevertheless seen as more appropriate. It is possible that expressions of empathy by whites are viewed as condescension to blacks, and hence inappropriate. Finally, while blacks may be most comfortable with standard assertion by whites in interracial situations, they perceived such behavior in both intraracial interactions as less appropriate than all other combinations of race and assertive content. Blacks may consider empathy behaviors to be socially required in intraracial encounters, whereas interracial ones can be accommodated more "formally" and still be judged to be appropriate. Thus, for college blacks, the most appropriate assertions are standard ones in white-to-black interactions and empathic ones in black-to-black interactions.
490
HROP A N D RAKOS
I I I I I
o e~
~
" ~
I
"
~
h,
X
< X [Z
I
o
1:
< Z
,d
<
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~- 0
0
Z <
z
r~
~
r~
o
~
~
< 0
z
-
0
~,~,,, ~ ~
<
~, ~. ~ ~ ~ '~.~'~ ~_ ~ .~'~ ~ ~. ~ ~ o ~ o ~ m ". m ~ ~_ ~ = ~
, ~ '~
~'~ .~ ~ II II II
0
~1
~v
•
RACE AND ASSERTION
491
GENERAL DISCUSSION The results of the present research support contentions (Caldwell-Colbert & Jenkins, 1982; Cheek, 1976; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983) that the efficacy of assertiveness training might be enhanced by attention to racial variables. While both blacks and whites confirmed the empathic assertion as a more socially desirable style than the standard assertion, the specific evaluations were dependent on the racial characteristics of the participants. For blacks, empathic assertion by whites in interracial situations is evaluated less positively than standard assertion emitted in the same context. Their judgment is reversed for black-to-black interactions, in which empathy components significantly enhance the perception of assertion. The training goals for assertion to blacks may therefore differ for black and white trainees (standard assertion for white trainees, empathic assertion for black trainees). On the other hand, white observers were influenced by race of asserter but not race of assertee. They felt more uncomfortable with either assertion by blacks than with comparable behavior emitted by whites. Empathy components enhanced the evaluation of assertion by whites, but not by blacks. Thus, training goals for blacks asserting to whites might deemphasize empathic verbalizations in favor of awareness of, and additional communications for handling, whites' discomfort with black assertion. The empathy components do appear to be appropriate training goals for whites asserting to whites (see also Kern, 1982; Kern et al., 1985; Rakos & Hrop, 1983; Woolfolk & Dever, 1979). The data generated in the present investigation also suggest that trainers need to attend to the discomfort each race experiences when assertions are emitted by individuals of the other race. Whites perceived black asserters to be intimidating in general, and blacks perceived white asserters to be aggressive when interacting with blacks. These reactions are consistent with the general social psychological literature investigating blackwhite prejudice (cf. Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980). These findings obviously need to be extended and clarified before we can confidently articulate differential training goals as a function of race of the participants. These evaluations were made by observers of, rather than participants in, the conflict interaction, and future research must establish whether such "abstract" or "ideal" judgments are significantly modified by "'concrete" involvement, as suggested by Gormally's (1982) work. The present studies restricted evaluations to male asserters; since evidence suggests that female asserters are devalued by individuals maintaining a conservative sex role orientation regardless of gender (Kern et al., 1985), and further, since blacks appear to manifest less conservative sex role attitudes than whites (Crovitz & Steinman, 1980; Unger, 1979), racial differences in the perception of conflict assertion as a function of race and sex of the participants must be investigated. The perceptions of noncollege blacks must also be assessed, since evidence exists that whites in a business setting, though presumably college educated, do not evaluate empathic assertion more positively than standard assertion (Mullinix &
492
HROP AND RAKOS
Galassi, 1981), as d o college whites. I n a d d i t i o n , the n o n v e r b a l c o m p o n e n t s utilized in this s t u d y were t h o s e j u d g e d to be socially a p p r o p r i a t e in p r e v i o u s research (McFall et al., 1982; R o s e & T r y o n , 1979), b u t t h o s e e v a l u a t i o n s were m a d e with respect to p r e d o m i n a n t (i.e., white) cultural n o r m s . Since the n o n v e r b a l c o m p o n e n t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b y blacks differ f r o m these (Caldwell-Colbert & Jenkins, 1982; Cheek, 1976), future investigations s h o u l d assess their i m p a c t , if any, in the p e r c e p t i o n o f the t w o styles o f assertion in the c o n t e x t o f the race o f the participants. Finally, generalizations f r o m the results o f the t w o e x p e r i m e n t s r e p o r t e d here m u s t be m a d e cautiously, since t h e y differed n o t o n l y in race o f subject b u t also in setting (state u n i v e r s i t y vs. c o m m u n i t y college) a n d type o f subject (volunteers fulfilling a c o u r s e r e q u i r e m e n t vs. students in intact classes). W h i l e it seems likely t h a t these m i n o r differences in setting a n d t y p e o f subject c o n t r i b u t e d m u c h less t h a n race o f subject to the o b s e r v e d effects (cf. C r o s b y et al., 1980), the presence a n d potential influence o f these c o n f o u n d i n g variables s h o u l d be recognized.
REFERENCES Caldwell-Colbert, A. T., & Jenkins, J. O. (1982). Modification of interpersonal behavior. In S. M. Turner & R. T. Jones (Eds.), Behavior modification in black populations (pp. 171-208). New York: Plenum Press. Cheek, D. K. (1976). Assertive black.., puzzled white. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact. Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546-563. Crovitz, E., & Steinman, A. (1980). A decade later: Black-white attitudes toward women's familial role. Journal of Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 170-176. Feldman, R. S., & Donahue, L.F. (1978). Nonverbal communication of affect in interracial dyads. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 979-987. GormaUy, J. (1982). Evaluation of assertiveness: Effects of gender, rater involvement, and level of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 13, 219-225. Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Grablowsky, B.J. (1979). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Tulsa, OK: Petroleum Publishing Company. Hull, D. B., & Schroeder, H. E. (1979). Some interpersonal effects of assertion, nonassertion, and aggression. Behavior Therapy, 10, 20-29. Katz, I.,Cohen, S.,&Glass, G. (1975). Somedeterminantsofcross-racialhelpingbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 964-970. Keane, T. M., St. Lawrence, J. S., Himadi, W. G., Graves, K. A., & Kelly, J. A. (1983). Blacks' perceptions of assertive behavior: An empirical evaluation. Behavior Modification, 7, 97-111. Kelly, J. A., St. Lawrence, J. S., Bradlyn, A. S., Himadi, W. G., Graves, IC A., & Keane, T.M. (1982). Interpersonal reactions to assertive and unassertive styles when handling social conflict situations. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 13, 33-40. Kern, J.M. (1982). Predicting the impact ofassertive, empathic-assertive, and nonassertive behavior: The assertiveness of the assertee. Behavior Therapy, 13, 486-498. Kern, J. M., CaveU, T. A., & Beck, B. (1985). Predicting differential reactions to males' versus females' assertions, empathic-assertions, and nonassertions. Behavior Therapy, 16, 63-75.
RACE AND ASSERTION
493
Lineberger, M. H., & Beezley, D. (1980, September). Components of assertive behavior: Are there black-white differences? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal. Lineberger, M. H., & Calhoun, K. S. (1983). Assertive behavior in black and white American undergraduates. Journal of Psychology, 113, 139-148. McFall, M. E., Winnett, R. L., Bordewick, M. C., Bornstein, P. H. (1982). Nonverbal components in the communication of assertiveness. Behavior Modification, 6, 121-140, Minor, B.J. (1978). A perspective for assertiveness training for blacks. Journal of Nonwhite Concerns, January, 63-70. MuUinix, S. D., & Galassi, J. P. (1981). Deriving the content of social skills training with a Verbal response components approach. Behavioral Assessment, 3, 55-66. Rakos, R. F. (1979). Content consideration in the distinction between assertive and aggressive behavior. Psychological Reports, 44, 767-773. Rakos, R. F., & Hrop, S. (1983). The influence of positive content and mode of presentation on the social evaluation of assertive behavior in conflict situations. Behavioral Counseling and Community Interventions, 3, 152-164. Rose, Y. S., & Tryon, W. W. (1979). Judgments of assertive behavior as a function of speech loudness, latency, content, gestures, inflection, and sex. Behavior Modification, 3, 112-123. Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Hersen, M., & Bellack, A. (1984). Effects of race on ratings of social skill. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 474-475. Unger, R. K. (1979). Female and male: Psychologicalperspectives. New York: Harper & Row. Woolfolk, R. L., & Dever, S. (1979). Perceptions of assertion: An empirical analysis. Behavior Therapy, 10, 404-411. RECEIVED:November 27, 1984 FINAL ACCEPTANCE"May 102 1985
The Influence of Race in the Social Evaluation of Assertion in Conflict Situations STEPHEN HROP RICHARD F. RAKOS Cleveland State University
In two separate experiments, black and white college students evaluated standard and empathic assertion emitted in black-to-white, black-to-black, white-towhite, and white-to-black conflict interactions. Overall, both black and white subjects perceived empathic assertion to be more socially desirable than standard assertion, but their judgments were affected by the race of the participants. Whites evaluated empathic assertion more favorably than standard assertion when the asserter was white, hut made no such distinction when he was black. Blacks perceived empathic assertion to a black to be more positive than standard assertion when the asserter was black, but reversed their judgment of the two styles when the asserter was white. Both blacks and whites evidenced discomfort with assertion by individuals of the other race. The clinical implications of these findings and suggestions for further research are discussed.
Research concerned with identifying the overt response c o m p o n e n t s of " a p p r o p r i a t e " a s s e r t i o n i n conflict s i t u a t i o n s h a s f o c u s e d o n t h e social consequences of the interaction. Standard assertion has been c o m p a r e d to a l t e r n a t i v e s s u c h as n o n a s s e r t i o n , aggression, p a s s i v e - a g g r e s s i o n , a n d e m p a t h i c a s s e r t i o n , w h i c h , i n a d d i t i o n to t h e d i r e c t a s s e r t i o n , i n c l u d e s o n e o r m o r e o f the following: b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n , s h o r t apology, s e e k i n g a c o m p r o m i s e , e m p a t h y s t a t e m e n t (e.g., R a k o s & H r o p , 1983). T h e evid e n c e s t r o n g l y suggests t h a t e m p a t h i c a s s e r t i o n i n conflict s i t u a t i o n s is j u d g e d m o r e f a v o r a b l y b y college s t u d e n t s t h a n the t y p i c a l s t a n d a r d assertion, w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g c o m p a r a b l e effectiveness i n a c h i e v i n g the de-
This research was conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author in partial fulfillment of the M.A. degree requirements at Cleveland State University. Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Philadelphia, November, 1984. Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard F. Rakos, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115. 478 0005-7894/85/0478-049351.00/0 Copyright 1985 by Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
RACE A N D ASSERTION
479
sired interpersonal goal (Kern, 1982; Kern, Cavell, & Beck, 1985; Rakos & Hrop, 1983; Woolfolk & Dever, 1979). Empathic assertion has, therefore, emerged as a preferred training goal. However, it is unclear to what extent these research findings can be generalized to persons who, for racial or cultural reasons, diverge from white, middle-class attitudes and values presumably held by the majority of research subjects. In fact, several writers have directly questioned the appropriateness of applying current assertiveness training procedures with blacks (CaldweU-Colbert & Jenkins, 1982; Cheek, 1976; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983; Minor, 1978)due to presumed or observed behavioral and normative differences between black and white interpersonal communication styles. Perhaps in response to such concerns, several recent studies have investigated various aspects of standard assertion involving blacks. With college students as subjects, it has been found that: interracial assertions by both blacks and whites tend to be more aggressive than intraracial ones (Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983); the verbal and nonverbal characteristics of black and white assertion are similar in role plays (Lineberger & Beezley, 1980), but, in written assessments, blacks make extensive use of black English vernacular in intraracial interactions (Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983); there are no differences between blacks and whites in knowledge of appropriate assertive behavior (Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983); blacks evaluate standard assertion involving two blacks as more competent but less likeable than nonassertion (Keane, St. Lawrence, Himadi, Graves, & Kelly, 1983), a finding which is consistent with the general social-evaluative assertiveness research (e.g., Kern, 1982); and black assertion, compared to nonassertion, is considered by white observers to be comparable to white assertion in terms of perceived effectiveness and skillfulness (Kelly, St. Lawrence, Bradlyn, Himadi, Graves, & Keane, 1982). Finally, studies using diverse subjects have determined that the impact of the assertive message is partly a function of the race of the speaker (Feldman & Donahue, 1978; Katz, Cohen, & Glass, 1975; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983; Turner, Beidel, Hersen, & Bellack, 1984), the judge (Turner et al., 1984), or both (Turner et al., 1984). This previous research has been limited in two important respects. First, despite findings suggesting important differences between intra- and interracial interactions, no study has assessed the social evaluation of assertion as a function of the race of all three participants: judge, asserter, assertee. Second, the superior social evaluation of empathic assertion, as compared to standard assertion, has not been confirmed in the context of the race of the three participants. The present study was designed to provide these more refined data by having white and black subjects evaluate videotapes depicting standard and empathic refusal assertions involving black-white, black-black, white-white, and white-black participants. The following predictions were advanced: (1) overall (disregarding the racial composition of the observed dyad), standard assertion would be evaluated less positively than empathic assertion by both black and white subjects; and (2) the evaluation of each style of assertion was ex-
480
H R O P A N D RAKOS
pected to be more favorable when the race o f the judge and asserter were the same, and furthermore, (2a) that this effect would be most pronounced for interracial interactions. Such a systematic examination of all possible combinations o f race of asserter, assertee, and judge across the two styles o f assertion will help clarify the constitution of "appropriate" assertion in both intra- and interracial social contexts. GENERAL METHOD Two experiments, one with white subjects and one with black subjects, were conducted. The experiments utilized the same factorial design (2 [assertive content] x 2 [race of asserter] x 2 [race o f assertee]), general procedures, and data analyses (multivariate analyses of variance [MANOVAs], discriminant function analyses, and Newman-Keuls tests, as appropriate).
Stimulus Materials In both experiments, subjects viewed two brief videotaped interactions in which a black or white male stimulus model refused the request of a black or white male recipient in a standard assertive manner or an empathic assertive manner. The two situations portrayed in the videotapes depicted social scenarios familiar to most students at the two urban, public universities which provided the subjects. One of the scenes consisted of the following narrative and model dialogue: Narrator: "Greg and a co-worker are mail clerks at the post office. Greg works the day shift while the other clerk works evenings. On several occasions in the past the other clerk has asked Greg if he would swap work shifts for the day because this other clerk wanted to visit a friend during the evening. Greg did this favor on previous occasions when he was asked, but really doesn't like the inconvenience o f changinghis own schedule around. For this reason, Greg decides that he will have to turn down this request in the future. A few days after making this decision, Greg was approached by the other clerk in the locker room between the change o f shifts." Clerk: " H e y Greg, a friend o f mine has invited me over to watch a movie on Monday evening. Would you mind trading work shifts with me on that day?" Standard assertion response: "'No, I'm sorry, but I'd really prefer not to work any more evening shifts." Empathic assertion response: "No, I'm sorry, but I'd really prefer not to work any more evening shifts because there are things I need to do at that time o f day. I realize you're probably disappointed and inconvenienced; perhaps in a few months I'll be able to help you out.'" The other stimulus scene portrayed two students "'at a large university" and involved the refusal o f a request for a ride home after class. The construction o f the assertive responses was guided by previous research and theorizing. The standard assertion refusal statements were similar to
RACE A N D ASSERTION
481
three responses previously judged to be "assertive" by six researchers p r o m i n e n t in assertiveness research) T h e empathic assertion responses, based on a conceptualization by Rakos (1979), included a b r i e f explanation, e m p a t h y statement, and possible c o m p r o m i s e in addition to the refusal o f the request. The nonverbal and paralinguistic c o m p o n e n t s o f b o t h styles o f responding were consistent with the response topographies identified as socially appropriate in previous research (McFall, Winnett, Bordewick, & Bornstein, 1982; Rose & Tryon, 1979). Four male college s t u d e n t s - - t w o blacks and two whites--served as stimulus models. Scenes were videotaped in color to highlight model race. T h e models rehearsed the scenes together under the direction o f the experimenters until their verbal and nonverbal behaviors were consistent and uniform (see validation o f stimulus videotapes below). F o u r asserters (two black and two white), two assertees (one black and one white), and two types o f content (standard assertion and empathic assertion) for each o f the two scenes resulted in a total o f 32 v i d e o t a p e d interactions.
Validation of Stimulus Videotapes All videotapes were independently rated by two trained white psychology students (one graduate, one undergraduate) on measures o f the asserter's voice loudness and tone, facial expression, empathy, flexibility, and verbal content. Ratings were m a d e on the following continua: voice loudness, 1 = very soft to 5 = very loud; facial expression and tone o f voice, 1 = appropriate to 5 = inappropriate; empathy, 1 = very empathetic to 5 = very nonempathetic; flexibility, 1 = very flexible to 5 = very inflexible. Finally, verbal content was classified d i c h o t o m o u s l y as Assertion I (standard assertion) or Assertion II (empathic assertion). Interrater reliabilities, d e t e r m i n e d by interclass correlations (Guilford & Fruchter, 1978, p. 270) a m o n g the 32 videotaped scenes, were: voice loudness, r = .99; facial expression, r = 1.00; tone o f voice, r = .96; empathy, r = .88; flexibility, r = 1.00; and verbal content, r = 1.00. MannWhitney U tests revealed the following additional results: all asserterassertee dyad comparisons within content type (i.e., all scenes depicting either standard assertion or empathic assertion, regardless o f the racial composition o f the observed dyad) yielded nonsignificant differences on all six validation measures. T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f identical asserter-assertee dyads between content type (i.e., a specific racial dyad demonstrating standard assertion c o m p a r e d with the same dyad demonstrating empathic assertion) yielded nonsignificant differences on measures o f voice loudness, tone, and facial expression, but significant differences for empathy, flexibility, and content (all p < .05). Thus, the analyses confirmed both the desired manipulation o f the verbal content and the consistency o f paralinguistic and nonverbal components, regardless o f the verbal content or racial composition o f the stimulus dyad. On the continuum 1 = nonassertive, 5 = assertive, 9 = aggressive, the mean rating was 4.9 with a range of 4.5-5.0 (Rakos & Hrop, 1983).
482
HROP AND RAKOS
TABLE 1 ADJECTIVERATINGSCALE:DISCRIMINANTANALYSISOF THE CONTENTEFFECT(WroTE JUDGES) Means Variable ~
S
E
Friendly-unfriendly Aggressive-unaggressive Sympathetic-unsympathetic Assertive-unassertive Dominant-submissive Appropriate-inappropriate Fair-unfair Flexible-inflexible Kind-unkind Intelligent-unintelligent Socially skilled-socially unskilled Pleasant-unpleasant
3.2 3.8 4.3 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.1 4.4 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.3
2.6 3.6 3.0 2.3 2.8 2.0 1.9 3.6 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.8
Univariate F2 7.25"* 1.23 30.70** 4.49* 1.47 5.41 * 4.00* 12.60** 9.48** 6.03"* 5.82** 5.38"
Discriminant loadings .42 .17 .86 .33 .18 .36 .31 .55 .48 .38 .37 .36
s = standard assertion; E = empathic assertion. t Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., fair = 1; unfair = 7). ~1, 136 df. *p < .05; **p < .01.
Dependent Measures A f t e r v i e w i n g each scene, subjects c o m p l e t e d a n adjective rating scale c o n t a i n i n g twelve 7 - p o i n t b i p o l a r s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e adjectives utilized in p r e v i o u s assertiveness research (Hull & Schroeder, 1979; R a k o s & H r o p , 1983). T h e s e i t e m s are listed in T a b l e 1. A personal impressions questionnaire, p r e s e n t e d after both scenes were viewed, assessed subjects' personal feelings t o w a r d s the asserter as well as their p e r c e p t i o n o f h o w the assertee experienced the i n t e r a c t i o n (see T a b l e 2). A n a d d i t i o n a l i t e m asked subjects to circle the o n e w o r d - - n o n a s s e r t i v e , assertive, o r aggress i v e - t h a t best c h a r a c t e r i z e d the asserter. Finally, a semantic rating scale, consisting o f 11 b i p o l a r i t e m s t h a t m e a s u r e d the p o t e n c y , evaluative, a n d activity d i m e n s i o n s o f the asserter's refusal r e s p o n s e (see T a b l e 3) was also a d m i n i s t e r e d after both scenes were viewed.
EXPERIMENT 1 Method Subjects Subjects consisted o f 144 white u n d e r g r a d u a t e students ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 55% male, 45% female) recruited f r o m i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y classes at a large, u r b a n , p r e d o m i n a t e l y white state university. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e p a r t m e n t a l research was a course r e q u i r e m e n t for these students. N o racial restrictions were identified in the p o s t e d r e c r u i t m e n t notices, necessitating the deletion o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f r o m a small n u m b e r o f black
RACE A N D ASSERTION
483
students. T h e 16 e x p e r i m e n t a l cells (4 asserters, 2 assertees, 2 assertive content) each contained 9 subjects after r a n d o m l y discarding responses f r o m several white students to attain an equal n u m b e r o f subjects in each cell.
Procedure T h e e x p e r i m e n t was described as an investigation o f "'styles o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , " in which subjects would be completing " p e r s o n a l i t y evalu a t i o n s " b a s e d on two v i d e o t a p e d interactions. F o r each scene, the exp e r i m e n t e r first described the b a c k g r o u n d circumstances relevant to the situation a n d then presented the v i d e o t a p e d interaction. After c o m p l e t i n g all rating scales, subjects were thoroughly debriefed.
Results P r e l i m i n a r y M A N O V A s revealed no significant differences between the two black asserters n o r between the two white asserters, allowing these intraracial variables to be collapsed for all subsequent analyses. H o w e v e r , the p r e l i m i n a r y M A N O V A for the scene variable was significant: F(12, 275) = 3.22, p < .001. A d i s c r i m i n a n t analysis 2 o f the scene effect indicated that the asserter in scene 1 (school scene) was evaluated as m o r e fair but less pleasant and friendly t h a n the asserter in scene 2 (post office scene). W h e n the scenes were analyzed separately, the d i s c r i m i n a n t loadings indicated that e m p a t h i c assertion was seen as m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c a n d flexible than standard assertion in b o t h scenes. This finding suggested that a collapse across the two scenes would n o t significantly affect interpretation o f the findings. Therefore, the scene variable was deleted for all subsequent analyses.
Main Effect: Assertive Content T w o o f the three rating scales yielded a significant m a i n effect for content: the adjective rating scale, F(12, 125) = 3.13, p < .001 (see T a b l e 1), a n d personal i m p r e s s i o n s questionnaire, F(10, 127) --- 3.49, p < .001 (see T a b l e 2). T h e d i s c r i m i n a n t function analyses o f the content effects indicated that e m p a t h i c assertion was seen as m o r e sympathetic, flexible, kind, and friendly than standard assertion. Additionally, subjects perceived the recipient (assertee) to feel m o r e valued a n d respected when the asserter engaged in e m p a t h i c assertion as o p p o s e d to standard assertion. Discriminant loadings were used to interpret all significant results of the multivariate analyses. Also referred to as structure correlations, they can be interpreted like factor loadhags. Generally, any dependent variable exhibiting a loading of .30 or greater (absolute value) is considered significant (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Grablowsky, 1979). Since a large number of questionnaire items were involved, we believed that confidence in the theoretical and clinical utility of the findings would be enhanced if conservative criteria for statistical significance were adopted. Therefore, only those items that exhibited a loading of .40 (absolute value) or greater and achieved a univariate significance ofp < .05 were considered statistically significant. The lone exception to this criterion occurs in Table 2, where the only item loading on the significant overall MANOVA had a value of -.35.
484
HROP A N D RAKOS
I.u
>,
< F, Z <
(Y o
il b~ .~ .~
<
o ,v o-. ¢.~.
~oo .~. ~
o
o~
~
~
~
o
~
RACE A N D ASSERTION
485
The final item on the personal impressions questionnaire--which asked subjects to characterize the asserter as nonassertive, assertive, or aggressive-resulted in nonsignificant findings based on a chi-square analysis. Main Effect: Race of Asserter The MANOVA yielded a significant main effect for race of asserter on the personal impressions questionnaire: F(10, 127) = 2.89, p < .003 (see Table 2). A discriminant function analysis indicated that subjects perceived the recipient to feel most inferior when the asserter was black. The other two questionnaires failed to achieve significant differences. Interaction: Assertive Content x Race of Asserter Only the semantic rating scale evidenced a significant content x asserter interaction: F(11, 126) = 2.27, p < .01 (see Table 3). The discriminant function analysis indicated that the brave-cowardly and the attractingrepelling items loaded significantly on the observed interaction. NewmanKeuls comparisons of means indicated that the white asserter engaging in empathic assertion was seen as less brave and more attracting than the white asserter engaging in standard assertion or than the black asserter engaging in either. The other main and interaction effects were nonsignificant.
Discussion White college students evaluated the asserter as being more sympathetic, flexible, kind, and friendly when he responded with empathic assertion compared to standard assertion. Furthermore, the assertee was perceived to feel most valued and respected when he was addressed in an empathic assertive manner. These findings, which support prediction 1, are essentially a replication of the results found by Rakos and Hrop (1983) and are consistent with the results of Kern (1982), Kern et al. (1985), and Woolfolk and Dever (1979). They also provide additional support for conceptualizations of empathic assertion that emphasize expressing concern for the other person's feelings (i.e., sympathetic) and seeking a mutually acceptable compromise when legitimate rights conflict (i.e., flexibility) (cf. Rakos, 1979). Racial variables proved important, though not necessarily in the predicted direction, in the evaluations by white observers. White asserters were evaluated more favorably when they emitted an empathic assertion compared to a standard assertion, but black asserters did not receive a similar differential judgment. Thus, the evaluation of black asserters by white observers may be more influenced by race than by specific assertive content. This finding only partially supports prediction 2 (empathic, but not standard, assertion was evaluated more favorably when race of judge and asserter were the same). Whites appear to be uncomfortable with assertion by blacks, even when such behavior includes the empathy components perceived to be socially appropriate in general. The finding that whites perceived the assertee (whether white or black) to feel most inferior
486
HROP AND RAKOS
TABLE 3 SEMANTIC RATING SCALE."D1SCRIMINANT ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT x ASSERTER
EFFECt
(WroTE JUDGES) Means 2 Variable~
BS
WS
BE
WE
Quarrelsome-congenial Weak-strong Brave-cowardly Severe-lenient Active-passive Aggravating-soothing Tough-fragile Cruel-kind Unselfish-selfish Masculine-feminine Attracting-repelling
4.9 5.4 2.5 b 3.1 3.1 4.1 3.6 4.9 3.4 2.7 4.1 ~
4.8 5.1 2.4b 3.4 3.4 4.0 3.3 4.5 3.9 2.7 4.1 b
5.2 5.4 2.6 b 2.9 2.9 4.5 3.6 5.4 3.5 2.8 4.1 b
5.4 5.6 3.0a 3.2 3.2 4.2 3.2 4.2 4.2 2.9 3.4a
DiscrimUnivariate inant Fa loadings .29 .87 8.53** .00 .00 .12 .004 .004 1.33 .005 8.37**
-.10 - . 17 .56 .00 .00 .06 .01 .01 .22 .01 .55
BS = black asserter engaging in standard assertion. WS = white asserter engaging in standard assertion. BE = black asserter engaging in empathic assertion. WE = white asserter engaging in empathic assertion. Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., cruel = 1; kind = 7). 2 For significant loadings, mean sharing the s a m e superscript d i d not differ in NewmanKeuls tests. 3 1,136 df. **p < .01.
when the asserter was black, regardless of assertive content, lends further s u p p o r t to t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . A l t h o u g h t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C h e e k ' s (1976) c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t w h i t e s e x p e c t b l a c k s t o b e s u b m i s s i v e o r to h a v e d i f f e r e n t n o r m s for s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , t h e f a i l u r e o f r a c e o f a s s e r t e e t o effect j u d g m e n t s ( p r e d i c t i o n 2a) d o e s not. I f w h i t e s m a i n t a i n , f o r e x ample, expectations of black submissiveness, we would predict that these e x p e c t a t i o n s w o u l d b e m o r e p r o n o u n c e d w h e n t h e a s s e r t e e is w h i t e . O v e r a l l , t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e K e l l y et al. (1982) f i n d i n g that white observers perceived standard assertion by blacks to be more flexible b u t less p l e a s a n t t h a n s t a n d a r d a s s e r t i o n b y w h i t e s . I t s e e m s t h a t w h i t e s m a k e few c l e a r - c u t e v a l u a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n s t a n d a r d ass e r t i o n b y w h i t e s a n d b l a c k s . H o w e v e r , t h e e m p a t h i c a s s e r t i v e style, w h i c h h a s e n h a n c e d t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e a s s e r t e r in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , a n d o f w h i t e a s s e r t e r s i n t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , f a i l e d to p r o v i d e t h e s a m e b e n e f i t s for black asserters. This differential judgment, which may be a manifest a t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e , fear, e r r o n e o u s e x p e c t a t i o n s , o r i g n o r a n c e s u p p o r t s o t h e r r e s e a r c h (e.g., K a t z et al., 1975) w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t a p o t e n t b l a c k i n t e r a c t i v e style c a u s e s d i s c o m f o r t for w h i t e s . A l t h o u g h b l a c k c a n d i d a t e s f o r a s s e r t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g m a y b e a c u t e l y a w a r e o f t h i s p h e n o m e n o n , it
RACE AND ASSERTION
487
TABLE 4 ADJECTIVE RATING SCALE:DISCRIMINANTANALYSISOF THE CONTENt EFFECr (BLACK JUDGES) Diserim-
Means
Variable ~
S
E
Friendly-unfriendly Aggressive-unag~'-essive Sympathetic-unsympathetic Assertive-unassertive Dominant-submissive Appropriate-inappropriate Fair-unfair Flexible-inflexible Kind-unkind Intelligent-unintelligent Socially skilled-socially unskilled Pleasant-unpleasant
2.4 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.2 2.2 1.9 3.4 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.4
1.9 3.7 2.4 2.8 3.7 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.9
Univariate F2 5.12* .33 22.13** 2.19 3.22 2.54 1.25 7.37** 5.61 ** 4.71 * 6.44** 5.97**
inant loadings - . 17 .15 -.77 -.24 .33 .20 .33 -.03 .00 - . 19 - . 13 - . 12
S = standard assertion; E = empathic assertion. Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., fair = 1; unfair = 7). 21,136dr *p < .05; **p < .01.
m a y surprise white trainers that our results suggest that e m p a t h y c o m p o n e n t s enhance the e v a l u a t i o n by whites o f assertion by whites but not o f assertion b y blacks. EXPERIMENT 2
Method Subjects Subjects were 144 black, c o m m u n i t y college students ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 45% male, 55% female) enrolled in i n t r o d u c t o r y health courses. Experim e n t a l sessions were c o n d u c t e d during regularly scheduled class times. Each o f eight classes consisting o f 2 0 - 2 5 students was d i v i d e d into two equal groups. T h e groups alternated between taking a b r e a k outside the classroom a n d participating in the experiment, except for being present together for the debriefing. T h e responses f r o m the small n u m b e r o f white students were r e m o v e d f r o m the data pool at a later time. T o obtain an equal n u m b e r o f subjects in each cell, data f r o m several black subjects were r a n d o m l y discarded f r o m m o s t o f the groups. T h e final subject pool consisted o f nine subjects in each o f the 16 e x p e r i m e n t a l cells.
Procedure T h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s descriptions a n d procedures were identical to those e m p l o y e d in E x p e r i m e n t 1.
488
HROP AND RAKOS
TABLE 5 SEMANTIC RATING SCALE: DISCRIMINANTANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT EFFECT (BLACK
JUDCES) Means Variable ~ Quarrelsome-congenial Weak-strong Brave -cowardly Severe-lenient Active-passive Aggravating-soothing Tough-fragile Cruel-kind Unselfish-selfish Masculine-feminine Attracting-repelling
S
E
Univariate F2
4.7 5.3 2.3 3.8 3.8 4.5 3.1 5.4 2.5 2.4 3.4
5.3 6.0 2.1 4.7 3.7 5.2 3.9 5.9 2.2 2.3 3.4
4.72" 6.24** .37 7.20** .12 4.84* .06 5.44* 1.35 .16 .01
Discriminant loadings - . 12 -.64 - . 24 - . 55 .12 - . 18 .09 - .46 .06 - .25 - .03
S = standard assertion; E = empathic assertion. Variables are scored from 1-7 (e.g., weak = 1; strong = 7). :1,136df * p < .05; * * p < .01.
Results Preliminary M A N O V A s o f the two black asserters, the two white asserters, and the two scenes revealed no significant effects. Therefore, these variables were collapsed for all subsequent analyses. M a i n Effect: Assertive Content The M A N O V A yielded a significant main effect for content on the adjective rating scale, F(12, 125) = 2.37, p < .009 (see Table 4), and on the semantic rating scale, F(11, 126) = 1.91, p < .04 (see Table 5). Subsequent discriminant function analyses indicated that empathic assertion was judged to be more sympathetic, stronger, kinder, and more lenient than standard assertion. In addition, on the personal impressions questionnaire, 21 subjects categorized the asserter as "aggressive" when he engaged in standard assertion, while 11 subjects gave the same label to empathic assertion. A chi-square analysis indicated that this difference was significant, X2 (1) = 5.24, p < .05. Interaction: Assertive Content x Race o f Asserter x Race o f Assertee The M A N O V A resulted in a significant content x asserter x assertee interaction on the adjective rating scale: F(12, 125) = 2.12, p < .02 (see Table 6). The discriminant analysis indicated that aggressive-unaggressive and appropriate-inappropriate were the primary contributions to this effect. N e w m a n - K e u l s comparisons o f means indicated that the asserter
RACE AND ASSERTION
489
was perceived to be the least aggressive when he was black and engaged in empathic assertion towards a white assertee. The asserter was, in contrast, perceived to be most aggressive when he was white and engaged in empathic assertion towards a black, though not significantly different from a white engaging in standard assertion to a black. Intermediate, and significantly different from the two extremes, were judgments of a black using standard assertion to a white (see Table 6). Additionally, NewmanKeuls tests indicated that the asserter was considered to be least appropriate when he engaged in standard assertion towards an assertee of his own race (i.e., white-to-white was least appropriate and black-to-black was next). In cross-racial comparisons, standard assertion by a white to a black was judged to be more appropriate than empathic assertion by a white to a black, and both empathic and standard assertion by a black to a white. The latter three interactions were all evaluated similarly (see Table 6). The other main and interaction effects failed to achieve significance.
Discussion The results of Experiment 2 confirmed the first prediction: black college students perceived empathic assertion to be more socially appropriate than standard assertion, while maintaining comparable potency. College blacks, like college whites, demonstrate a sensitivity to the potential negative social consequences of assertion and value the addition of empathy components to the expression of rights (cf. Keane et al., 1983). The racial composition of the interacting dyad (but not race ofasserter-prediction 2) influenced the perception of black judges. Empathic assertion by a white to a black was viewed as appropriate but fairly aggressive, whereas the same behavior emitted by a black to a white was seen as equally appropriate but relatively unaggressive. This partially supports prediction 2a, and is not inconsistent with Lineberger and Calhoun's (1983) finding that blacks tend to be more aggressive in their assertions towards whites than towards other blacks (i.e., black judges observing a black engaging in empathic assertion towards a white might indeed consider such behavior to be relatively unaggressive). In addition, when the assertee was black, both styles of assertion by a white were judged to be fairly aggressive, but the standard version was nevertheless seen as more appropriate. It is possible that expressions of empathy by whites are viewed as condescension to blacks, and hence inappropriate. Finally, while blacks may be most comfortable with standard assertion by whites in interracial situations, they perceived such behavior in both intraracial interactions as less appropriate than all other combinations of race and assertive content. Blacks may consider empathy behaviors to be socially required in intraracial encounters, whereas interracial ones can be accommodated more "formally" and still be judged to be appropriate. Thus, for college blacks, the most appropriate assertions are standard ones in white-to-black interactions and empathic ones in black-to-black interactions.
490
HROP A N D RAKOS
I I I I I
o e~
~
" ~
I
"
~
h,
X
< X [Z
I
o
1:
< Z
,d
<
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~- 0
0
Z <
z
r~
~
r~
o
~
~
< 0
z
-
0
~,~,,, ~ ~
<
~, ~. ~ ~ ~ '~.~'~ ~_ ~ .~'~ ~ ~. ~ ~ o ~ o ~ m ". m ~ ~_ ~ = ~
, ~ '~
~'~ .~ ~ II II II
0
~1
~v
•
RACE AND ASSERTION
491
GENERAL DISCUSSION The results of the present research support contentions (Caldwell-Colbert & Jenkins, 1982; Cheek, 1976; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983) that the efficacy of assertiveness training might be enhanced by attention to racial variables. While both blacks and whites confirmed the empathic assertion as a more socially desirable style than the standard assertion, the specific evaluations were dependent on the racial characteristics of the participants. For blacks, empathic assertion by whites in interracial situations is evaluated less positively than standard assertion emitted in the same context. Their judgment is reversed for black-to-black interactions, in which empathy components significantly enhance the perception of assertion. The training goals for assertion to blacks may therefore differ for black and white trainees (standard assertion for white trainees, empathic assertion for black trainees). On the other hand, white observers were influenced by race of asserter but not race of assertee. They felt more uncomfortable with either assertion by blacks than with comparable behavior emitted by whites. Empathy components enhanced the evaluation of assertion by whites, but not by blacks. Thus, training goals for blacks asserting to whites might deemphasize empathic verbalizations in favor of awareness of, and additional communications for handling, whites' discomfort with black assertion. The empathy components do appear to be appropriate training goals for whites asserting to whites (see also Kern, 1982; Kern et al., 1985; Rakos & Hrop, 1983; Woolfolk & Dever, 1979). The data generated in the present investigation also suggest that trainers need to attend to the discomfort each race experiences when assertions are emitted by individuals of the other race. Whites perceived black asserters to be intimidating in general, and blacks perceived white asserters to be aggressive when interacting with blacks. These reactions are consistent with the general social psychological literature investigating blackwhite prejudice (cf. Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980). These findings obviously need to be extended and clarified before we can confidently articulate differential training goals as a function of race of the participants. These evaluations were made by observers of, rather than participants in, the conflict interaction, and future research must establish whether such "abstract" or "ideal" judgments are significantly modified by "'concrete" involvement, as suggested by Gormally's (1982) work. The present studies restricted evaluations to male asserters; since evidence suggests that female asserters are devalued by individuals maintaining a conservative sex role orientation regardless of gender (Kern et al., 1985), and further, since blacks appear to manifest less conservative sex role attitudes than whites (Crovitz & Steinman, 1980; Unger, 1979), racial differences in the perception of conflict assertion as a function of race and sex of the participants must be investigated. The perceptions of noncollege blacks must also be assessed, since evidence exists that whites in a business setting, though presumably college educated, do not evaluate empathic assertion more positively than standard assertion (Mullinix &
492
HROP AND RAKOS
Galassi, 1981), as d o college whites. I n a d d i t i o n , the n o n v e r b a l c o m p o n e n t s utilized in this s t u d y were t h o s e j u d g e d to be socially a p p r o p r i a t e in p r e v i o u s research (McFall et al., 1982; R o s e & T r y o n , 1979), b u t t h o s e e v a l u a t i o n s were m a d e with respect to p r e d o m i n a n t (i.e., white) cultural n o r m s . Since the n o n v e r b a l c o m p o n e n t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b y blacks differ f r o m these (Caldwell-Colbert & Jenkins, 1982; Cheek, 1976), future investigations s h o u l d assess their i m p a c t , if any, in the p e r c e p t i o n o f the t w o styles o f assertion in the c o n t e x t o f the race o f the participants. Finally, generalizations f r o m the results o f the t w o e x p e r i m e n t s r e p o r t e d here m u s t be m a d e cautiously, since t h e y differed n o t o n l y in race o f subject b u t also in setting (state u n i v e r s i t y vs. c o m m u n i t y college) a n d type o f subject (volunteers fulfilling a c o u r s e r e q u i r e m e n t vs. students in intact classes). W h i l e it seems likely t h a t these m i n o r differences in setting a n d t y p e o f subject c o n t r i b u t e d m u c h less t h a n race o f subject to the o b s e r v e d effects (cf. C r o s b y et al., 1980), the presence a n d potential influence o f these c o n f o u n d i n g variables s h o u l d be recognized.
REFERENCES Caldwell-Colbert, A. T., & Jenkins, J. O. (1982). Modification of interpersonal behavior. In S. M. Turner & R. T. Jones (Eds.), Behavior modification in black populations (pp. 171-208). New York: Plenum Press. Cheek, D. K. (1976). Assertive black.., puzzled white. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact. Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546-563. Crovitz, E., & Steinman, A. (1980). A decade later: Black-white attitudes toward women's familial role. Journal of Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 170-176. Feldman, R. S., & Donahue, L.F. (1978). Nonverbal communication of affect in interracial dyads. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 979-987. GormaUy, J. (1982). Evaluation of assertiveness: Effects of gender, rater involvement, and level of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 13, 219-225. Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Grablowsky, B.J. (1979). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Tulsa, OK: Petroleum Publishing Company. Hull, D. B., & Schroeder, H. E. (1979). Some interpersonal effects of assertion, nonassertion, and aggression. Behavior Therapy, 10, 20-29. Katz, I.,Cohen, S.,&Glass, G. (1975). Somedeterminantsofcross-racialhelpingbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 964-970. Keane, T. M., St. Lawrence, J. S., Himadi, W. G., Graves, K. A., & Kelly, J. A. (1983). Blacks' perceptions of assertive behavior: An empirical evaluation. Behavior Modification, 7, 97-111. Kelly, J. A., St. Lawrence, J. S., Bradlyn, A. S., Himadi, W. G., Graves, IC A., & Keane, T.M. (1982). Interpersonal reactions to assertive and unassertive styles when handling social conflict situations. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 13, 33-40. Kern, J.M. (1982). Predicting the impact ofassertive, empathic-assertive, and nonassertive behavior: The assertiveness of the assertee. Behavior Therapy, 13, 486-498. Kern, J. M., CaveU, T. A., & Beck, B. (1985). Predicting differential reactions to males' versus females' assertions, empathic-assertions, and nonassertions. Behavior Therapy, 16, 63-75.
RACE AND ASSERTION
493
Lineberger, M. H., & Beezley, D. (1980, September). Components of assertive behavior: Are there black-white differences? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal. Lineberger, M. H., & Calhoun, K. S. (1983). Assertive behavior in black and white American undergraduates. Journal of Psychology, 113, 139-148. McFall, M. E., Winnett, R. L., Bordewick, M. C., Bornstein, P. H. (1982). Nonverbal components in the communication of assertiveness. Behavior Modification, 6, 121-140, Minor, B.J. (1978). A perspective for assertiveness training for blacks. Journal of Nonwhite Concerns, January, 63-70. MuUinix, S. D., & Galassi, J. P. (1981). Deriving the content of social skills training with a Verbal response components approach. Behavioral Assessment, 3, 55-66. Rakos, R. F. (1979). Content consideration in the distinction between assertive and aggressive behavior. Psychological Reports, 44, 767-773. Rakos, R. F., & Hrop, S. (1983). The influence of positive content and mode of presentation on the social evaluation of assertive behavior in conflict situations. Behavioral Counseling and Community Interventions, 3, 152-164. Rose, Y. S., & Tryon, W. W. (1979). Judgments of assertive behavior as a function of speech loudness, latency, content, gestures, inflection, and sex. Behavior Modification, 3, 112-123. Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Hersen, M., & Bellack, A. (1984). Effects of race on ratings of social skill. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 474-475. Unger, R. K. (1979). Female and male: Psychologicalperspectives. New York: Harper & Row. Woolfolk, R. L., & Dever, S. (1979). Perceptions of assertion: An empirical analysis. Behavior Therapy, 10, 404-411. RECEIVED:November 27, 1984 FINAL ACCEPTANCE"May 102 1985