Person. indirid. Oifl Vol. I I, No. 5, pp.509-513. 1990 0191-8869,‘90 53.00 + 0.

00
Pnnted m Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright C 1990 Pcrgamon Press plc

THE SCALE FOR INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOUR

AND THE WOLPE-LAZARUS ASSERTIVENESS
SCALE: A CORRELATIONAL COMPARISON
IN A NON-CLINICAL SAMPLE

W. A. ARRINDELL’,R. SANDERMAN*
and A. RANCHOR’
‘Vrije Universiteit, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam
Psychiatric Centre, Valeriusplein 9, 1075 BG Amsterdam and ?University of Groningen,
Department of Health Sciences, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen,
The Netherlands

(Receiced I September 1989)

Summary-Despite an explosive proliferation of assertion measures, a hiatus has been observed by

several authors to establish the psychometric adequacy of existing instruments. In order to expand
the construct validity of the Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour (SIB) further, its (sub)scale components
of distress and difficulty in assertiveness were correlated with the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale,
the Social Anxiety Scale (a trait measure), and background factors such as sex, age and military
rank in a large sample of healthy military personnel. From the findings it emerged that the measures
exhibit a sizeable degree of shared variance (being only very minimally affected by item overlap across
instruments), and that SIB scores are not affected by sex and age, though minimally so by military
rank.

INTRODUCTION

Reviews of the literature on assertion assessment (cf. St Lawrence, 1987) point to ample evidence
of an explosive proliferation of self-report measures. Writers in this area, however, have emphasised
that although assertion training has developed into a widely used treatment, state-of-the-art
assessment has not kept pace (e.g. Hersen & Bellack, 1977; Beck & Heimberg, 1983; Swimmer &
Ramanaiah, 1985; St Lawrence, 1987; Becker & Heimberg, 1988). St Lawrence (1987), for example,
noted that a plethora of instruments appeared and then far outstripped psychometric research when
the need for measures exceeded the available assessment instruments: poorly validated instruments
appeared to fill the void, established themselves through premature publication, and became
perpetuated in the haste to evaluate treatment outcome (pp. 157-158). Thus several authors have
avowed that a hiatus be clearly observed to establish the psychometric adequacy of existing
assertiveness measures.
In her review, St Lawrence (1987) specifically recommended that researchers would be
better advised to direct their efforts to establishing psychometric support for the more promising
of the existing instruments than in continuing to expend energy on unproven new measures
(pp. 181-182).
The Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour (SIB; Arrindell, De Groot & Walburg, 1984; Arrindell
& Van der Ende, 1985) is a 50-item multi-dimensional measure of assertion which taps both
distress/anxiety and performance components (see below). The SIB has good reliability and
adequate convergent and divergent construct validity (cf. Arrindell & Van der Ende, 1985;
Arrindell, Sanderman, Van der Molen, Van der Ende & Mersch, 1988), while also having
proved to be a sensitive measure of change (e.g. Van der Molen, 1985). However, there is a
need to extend its construct validity further by specifically seeking to determine the associations
of its different scales to the longer existing Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale (Wolpe & Lazarus,
1966, p. 41) in a heterogeneous volunteers sample of healthy Ss in military service. In
addition, this study attempts to investigate the correlations between SIB (sub)scales on the one
hand and a trait measure of social anxiety- the Social Anxiety Scale (Willems, Tuender-de Haan
& Defares, 1973), and background factors such as sex, age, and military rank on the other
hand.
 510 W. A. ARRISDELL er al

METHOD

Subjects
A convenience sample comprising 878 healthy Ss in military service provided the data for the
study, with both males (n = 805) and females (n = 73) being among the participating Ss. Females
were significantly younger than males (1.78 vs 2.24, respectively; t = 3.30, d.f. = 876, 2-tailed
P < 0.01; with age scored on a 4-point continuum ranging from ‘l’, <24 yr, via ‘2’, 25-34 yr, and
‘3’, 35-44 yr, to ‘4’, 2 45 yr). For both males and females, military rank ranged from that of officer
to the lowest possible class of military personnel. There was no significant difference between the
sexes in terms of military rank (2-tailed test, observed P > 0.20; corresponding r = 0.04 N.S).

Questionnaires
The SIB. Forty-six out of 50 of the items are classified (in a non-overlapping fashion) into four
categories of assertive behaviour (described below). The respondent evaluates each item on two
separate 5-point (l-5) scales, one for discomfort (to the left of the item), and one for the probability
of engaging in a specific assertive behaviour (to the right of the item). Specifically, the SIB measures
the following factorially-derived dimensions:
I. Display of negative feelings (Negative assertion): requesting change in a person’s irritating
behaviour; standing up for one’s rights in a public situation (defense of rights and interests);
behaviour that calls for exercise of initiative to resolve problems and to satisfy needs; ability to
refuse requests.
II. Expression of and dealing with personal limitations: admitting ignorance about a topic;
recognition of one’s failure or shortcomings; ability to deal with criticism and pressure; requesting
help and attention.
III. Initiating assertiveness: social assertiveness in the sense of Lorr and More (1980); expressing
one’s own opinion.
IV. Praising others and the ability to deal with compliments/praise of others (expression of positive
feerings or positive assertion-in the sense of Henderson & Fumham, 1983): giving and receiving
praise or compliments; display of feelings.
In addition to these subscales, a fifth scale termed General assertiveness can be employed as an
indication of a person’s level of assertiveness across various situations and various types of assertive
behaviour. The General Scale is scored for both distress and performance (see Arrindell & Van
der Ende, 1985, for a survey of the items).
The Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale (WLAS). This 30-item true-false inventory was primarily
devised out of clinical necessity by Wolpe and Lazarus (1966). Only until more than a decade
later did Hersen, Bellack, Turner, Williams, Harper and Watts (1979) report on psychometric
properties of the WLAS in a sample of male and female psychiatric day hospital and inpatients.
Hersen et al. pointed out that the instrument seemed to be internally consistent and that it had
acceptable split-half and test-retest reliabilities. In a preliminary analysis, reliability pretests with
the WLAS showed item 6 to be unreliable and was therefore excluded from the present study. In
addition, in this study, all items were scored on 5-point (l-5) continua rather than on true-false
scales.
The Social Anxiety Scale (SAS). Acceptable reliability and construct validity figures have been
published for the SAS (Willems et al., 1973). As to construct validity, Willems et al. reported for
non-patient samples, among other things, that the SAS was substantially correlated with Negative
fear of failure (0.63), and moderately with Test anxiety (0.47) and General self-esteem (-0.42).
Also, the SAS correlated moderately with the following aspects of Self-esteem: Satisfaction with
own social functioning during interpersonal interactions (5: -0.58; 9: -0.46). Satisfaction with
one’s physical appearance and bodily characteristics (& -0.44; 0: -0.42). Further, Willems et al.
(1973) reported low to moderate but statistically significant correlations between the SAS on the
one hand and Social extraversion (-0.36) and Loneliness (0.44) on the other hand (Ps < 0.01,
l-tailed). The presently used measure contained 24 items, each of which was rated on a 5-point
scale.
Higher scores on the WLAS and the SAS denote greater assertive performance and greater
manifestations of trait social anxiety, respectively.
 Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour and the Wolpe-Lazarus AssertivenessScale 511

Statistical analyses
For determining associations between variables, product-moment correlations of the Pearsonian
type were calculated throughout. In addition, correlations between the SIB on the one hand and
the WLAS and the SAS on the other hand were all corrected for attenuation by taking the internal
consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s zs) of the corresponding measures into account (see Nunnally,
1978, pp. 2 19-220).
Since there were no a priori expectations with respect to the quality of the association between
military rank and assertiveness, the rs concerned were evaluated 2-sidedly. On the basis of previous
findings (see below), all further tests were done I-sidedly. Due to missing data on either a small
number of items of any one measure or on any of the background variables, the Ns reported vary
from calculation to calculation.
Because of sex differences, the results are presented separately for males and females. Due to
the relatively large sample size for the male group, differences in correlations between the sexes were
not tested for statistical significance. Rather, differences were described in terms of departures in
effect sizes denoted by the associations (see Cohen, 1977, p. 82). Furthermore, in interpreting
correlations between measures, the extent of item-overlap across scales was taken into
consideration (see Farley and Cohen, 1974, p. 769).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 gives a survey of the associations [both zero-order rs and, when applicable, rs corrected
for attenuation (ra s)]. In addition, it shows, in parentheses, for each scale, a reliabilities (all of which
were of acceptable magnitudes) for each of the sexes.
SIB with WLAS and SAS. All distress scales of the SIB were significantly negatively correlated
with the WLAS (-0.44 - -0.79) the great majority of the r,s (9 out of 10) being of large effect
size (i.e. > lO.SOl).The SIB performance scales were all positively correlated with the WLAS, with
r,s ranging from 0.26 to 0.68 (medium to large effect sizes). However, the latter associations were,
with one or two exceptions, of smaller magnitudes than those obtained by correlating the WLAS
with the SIB distress scales. All SIB distress scales were also positively associated with trait social
anxiety as measured by the SAS (r,s: 0.49-0.85 or large effect sizes). In addition, all SIB
performance scales were negatively correlated with trait social anxiety, with r,s ranging from small
to large in terms of the effect sizes which they reflected (-0.22 to - 0.52). Interestingly, in terms
of either explained variance or effect size, distress scales of the SIB were, in most instances, more
strongly correlated with the WLAS and trait social anxiety in females than in males, with the
reverse being the case as concerns the associations between SIB performance scales and the same
external measures. The largest correlations were obtained in relating the SIB distress subscales of
Initiating and Negative assertiveness to both the WLAS and the SAS, with shared variances ranging
from 31 to 72% (based on ras). From Table 1, it could also be discerned that specific scales of the
SIB (e.g. Initiating assertiveness) were clearly more effectively associated with the WLAS and the
SAS than were others (e.g. Positive Assertion), thereby providing evidence for discriminant validity
of assertion constructs within the SIB itself.
In order to rule out the possibility that high rs would be obtained mainly due to item overlap
across instruments, common-elements correlational analyses were also done for determining the
degree of operational similarity between the concerning scales. From these secondary analyses, it
appeared that this similarity was quite small and that corrections for overlap would not detract
in a meaningful fashion from the rs reported in the table. Thus, overlap across measures in terms
of item content was quite small. It should be pointed out that the WLAS and the SAS were
themselves very highly intercorrelated (males, r = -0.75, ra = -0.88, n = 764; and females,
r = -0.72, ra = -0.86, n = 71; P < 0.001, l-tailed).
SIB and background factors. Sex (male = 1, female = 2) was found to be significantly positively
correlated with all distress scales of the SIB, pointing to higher scores for females. However, the
rs were all of small effect size and close to zero. Not one of the SIB performance scales was
significantly correlated with sex.
In the male sample, age was found to be inconsistently correlated with both experienced distress
and difficulty in assertiveness. The statistically significant rs were all of small effect size, while not
 512 W. A. ARRINDELL
er al.

exceeding IO.IO I. In the female sample, age was consistently unrelated to either distress or difficulty
in assertiveness.
The highest TS were obtained with military rank. Specifically, males in low ranks experienced
greater distress in initiating assertive responses and in the expression of and dealing with personal
limitations than their male counterparts in high ranks (both rs = -0.13, P < 0.01). The corre-
sponding associations in females were not statistically significant. Positive assertion correlated
significantly negatively with rank in females but not in males, representing a meaningful sex
difference (r = -0.25, P < 0.05 vs +O.Ol NS). Only in males did the Expression of and dealing
with persona1 limitations, Initiating assertiveness and Genera1 performance scales correlate with
military rank (+ 0.15, + 0.22 and + 0.16, respectively; P < 0.01). As to the Initiating assertiveness
subscale, a meaningful sex difference was observed: +0.22 (P < 0.01) vs +0.09 (NS). Again,
specific scales of the SIB showed clear differences in their correlational patterns with background
factors (compare, for example, the Initiating assertiveness and Positive assertion distress and
performance measures), thus arguing for discriminant validity of concepts within the SIB itself.
Comparisons withpreviousfindings. Arrindell et al. (1984) and Arrindell and Van der Ende (1985)
reported correlations obtained in both clinical and non-clinical samples between the SIB and
analogous measures (e.g. Social fears, Social inadequacy) of magnitudes that were either compara-
ble to or somewhat smaller (but still of substantial magnitudes) than those yielded here. At the
same time, meaningfully smaller associations were reported in those studies when relating the SIB
to non-analogous state and trait measures of psychological functioning (e.g. Psychoticism,
Hostility, Social desirability, and non-social fears such as Agoraphobia and Fears of harmless

Table 1. Survey of correlations (zero-order IS and TS corrected for attenuation or r,s) between the (sub)scales of the Scale for Interpersonal
Behaviour (SIB) on the one hand and the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale (WLAS), the Social Anxiety Scale (SAS). and background
factors (sex, age and military rank) on the other hand for a sample of healthy military personnel

WLAS SAS Age Rankt

3 (81) I (78) 3’ (88) 2 (91) SEX s 2 j E

SIB Distress
I Display of negative -48**’ -58*‘* 54*** @... 06. IO” 01 01 -17
feelings (Negative -56... -69*.* 6l*** 70.8.
assertion)
(d: 91; P: 91)
II Expression of and _4‘$*.* -52.a. 51*** 55*** 06’ 10.0 01 - 13’. -13
dealing with -j,*** -63**’ 57.8. 63***
personal limitations
(3: 90; P: 86)
III Initiating _5**** -65**. w**. 75a.9 078 03 01 -13’. -17
assertiveness _62*** -79.L. 74.8. 85”’
(s’: 87; P: 87)
IV Expression of -37.” _4,*.* 51*** 08’ -08’ -05 01 -258
positive feelings -44*.* - 50”’ 58**’
(Positive assertion)
(3: 87; p: 86)

General distress -5,*.* -60.‘. 59*** 68*** 08’ 06. -02 -05 -20
(3: 96: Q: 96) -58*** -70.‘. 64... 738.0

SIB Performance
I Display of negative 54*** 23’ -40”. -20’ -04 -02 09 IO 07
feelings (Negative 68’99 30.. -48... - 24*
assertion)
(3: 78; 9: 77)
II Expression of and 34.” 23. -27.” -19 01 07’ -03 15.’ 21
dealing with 43.0’ 28. -32.89 -22’
personal limitations
(3: 79; P: 85)
III Initiating 458.1 38”. _43... -35*.* -01 01 01 22*9 09
assertiveness 57*** 51*** -52.” _44***
(3: 77; 0: 70)
IV Expression of 29’** 21. _2]... -25’ -03 -lo** -07 02 05
oositivc feelinns 379” 26. -25... -29**
{Positive asseryion)
(3: 78; E: 83)

General _4,*** I4
^ ^performance
__ 51.‘. 33’.
-46***
-29** -02 -03 -02 16..
(6: YI; y: YZ) -32”

lP d 0.05: l*f Q 0.01; l**P < 0.001 (I-tailed tests, unless otherwise specified).
t?-tailed tests (low rank = I, high rank = 3).
All correlations are of the Pearsonian type; Cronbach’s zs have been placed between parentheses; decimal points have been omitted (z x 100,
r x 100). ns Vary from 729 to 793 (3). 67 to 73 (3). and 816 to 865 (6 + i).
 Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour and the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale 513

animals), and to background factors (e.g. sex, age etc.). Thus, the findings presented here offer
further support for the construct validity of the SIB scales. While the meaning of the sex difference
in validity coefficients obtained in the present study is as yet unclear (the WLAS and the SAS did
not correlate with sex: 0.02, NS, for both scales), it does underscore the necessity of performing
validity studies, in the first instance, for the separate sexes.
Further in line with previous studies with the SIB using different types of samples, sex and age
were found not to appreciably affect the self-reports of distress and difficulty in assertiveness. This
implies, among other things, that it would not be necessary to control for their effects when
conducting comparisons between independent samples on the SIB, unless of course between-group
differences on the concerning background variables are quite extreme. In addition, normative
studies with the SIB need not break down the data for specific age groups or for the sexes
separately. By contrast, studies with samples such as the one considered in the present study would
require a cautious look at the potential influence of military rank on the self-reports of assertiveness
provided that the rs 2 IO.20I found here between the two sets of variables could be replicated in
future work. Importantly, the associations of the SIB to the WLAS and the SAS were, in terms
of effect size, definitely larger than those found in correlating the SIB with background variables.
In summary, within the self-report mode, the magnitudes of the validity coefficients given here
between the SIB on the one hand and the WLAS, SAS, and background factors on the other hand,
in conjunction with the finding of differential correlational patterns of specific SIB scales with
external variables, attest to the robustness of the construct validity (convergent and divergent) of
the SIB as a whole.
More studies are needed with additional groups to expand the clinical, applied and research
potentials of the SIB.

REFERENCES
Arrindell, W. A. & Van der Ende, J. (1985). Cross-sample invariance of the structure of self-reported distress and difficulty
in assertiveness. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 7, 205-243.
Arrindell, W. A., De Groot, P. M. & Walburg, J. A. (1984). De &haul voor Interpersoonlijk Gedrag (SIG); Handleiding
Dee/ I. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanderman, R., Van der Molen, H., Van der Ende, J. & Mersch, P.-P. (1988). The structure of
assertiveness: A confirmatory approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 331-339.
Beck, J. G. & Heimberg, R. G. (1983). Self-report assessment of assertive behavior: A critical analysis. Behavior
Modification, 7. 45 l-487.
Becker, R. E. & Heimberg, R. G. (1988). Assessment of social skills. In Bellack, A. S. & Hersen, M. (Eds), Behavioral
assessment: A pracrical handbook (3rd edn). New York: Pergamon Press.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Revised edition). New York: Academic Press.
Farley, F. H. & Cohen, A. (1974). Common-item effects and the smallest space analysis of structure. Psychological Bulletin,
81, 766-712.
Henderson, M. & Furnham, A. (1983). Dimensions of assertiveness: Factor analysis of five assertion inventories. Journal
of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 14, 223-231.
Hersen, M. & Bellack, A. S. (1977). Assessment of social skills. In Ciminero, A. R., Calhoun, K. S. & Adams, H. E. (Ed@,
Handbook of behavioral assessment. New York: Wiley.
Hersen, M., Bellack, A. S., Turner, S. M., Williams, M. T., Harper, K. & Watts, J. G. (1979). Psychometric properties
of the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness Scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 63-69.
Lorr, M. & More, W. W. (1980). Four dimensions of assertiveness. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2, 127-138.
Nunnally. J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
St Lawrence, J. S. (1987). Assessment of assertion. In Hersen, M., Eisler, R. M. & Miller, P. M. (Eds), Progress in behavior
modification (Vol. 21). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Swimmer, G. I. & Ramanaiah, N. V. (1985). Convergent and discriminant validity of selected assertiveness measures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psycho1og.v. 49, 243-249.
Van der Molen, H. T. (1985). Hulp als Onderwgs: Effecten van Cursussen voor Verlegen Mensen. Groningen:
Wolters-Noordhoff.
Willems, L. F. M., Tuender-de Haan, H. A. & Defares, P. B. (1973). Een schaal om sociale angst te meten. Nederlands
Tijdschrifi voor de Psychologie, 28, 415-422.
Wolpe, J. & Lazarus, A. A. (1966). Behavior rherapy rechniques: A guide to rhe freatment of neuroses. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.